University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative
Exchange
Masters Theses
Graduate School
5-2016
Associations Among Perceived Motor
Competence, Motor Competence, Physical
Activity, and Health-Related Physical Fitness of
Children Ages 10-15 Years Old.
Emily Marie Post
University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected]
Recommended Citation
Post, Emily Marie, "Associations Among Perceived Motor Competence, Motor Competence, Physical Activity, and Health-Related
Physical Fitness of Children Ages 10-15 Years Old.. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2016.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3798
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Emily Marie Post entitled "Associations Among Perceived
Motor Competence, Motor Competence, Physical Activity, and Health-Related Physical Fitness of
Children Ages 10-15 Years Old.." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and
content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science, with a major in Kinesiology.
Dawn Coe, Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
Eugene Fitzhugh, Jeffrey Fairbrother
Accepted for the Council:
Dixie L. Thompson
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
Associations Among Perceived Motor Competence, Motor Competence,
Physical Activity, and Health-Related Physical Fitness of Children Ages 1015 Years Old.
A Thesis Presented for the
Master of Science
Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Emily Marie Post
May 2016
ii
Copyright © 2016 by Emily Post
All rights reserved.
iii
DEDICATION
To my fiancé, Tyler, and my parents, Mike and Jo. Thank you for all of your love,
support, and encouragement. God has blessed me tremendously. All I have accomplished
is in God’s glory.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express a sincere thank you to my major professor, Dr. Dawn Coe.
Thank you for setting a great example for me and showing me how rewarding research
can be. You have made my time here at The University of Tennessee worth every second.
I appreciate the countless hours of advice, editing, teaching, and mentoring me that you
have given. Words cannot describe my gratitude towards the hard work you have put in
for me.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Fitzhugh and Dr.
Fairbrother. Dr. Fitzhugh, you have been a constant source for advice and mentoring
through the Center for Physical Activity and Health, along with my thesis work. Thank
you for all of your time that you have spent with me over my time here. Dr. Fairbrother,
you have been a constant example of knowledge and inspiration in the child and motor
development field. Thank you for all of time you have spent with me on my thesis work.
I would also like to acknowledge my undergraduate professors, Dr. Thistlethwaite
and Dr. Nelson, at Ohio Dominican University. You two are the reason that I have
pursued a career in exercise physiology. Thank you for all of your mentoring and support
over the years.
Thank you to my participants for this study. I truly could not have done it without
you. Thank you for participating and really wanting to learn. Thank you for the endless
opportunities that you have created for me by being a part of this study.
I would like to thank my fellow graduate students. You were a great group of
individuals to work with in my time here at UTK. Thank you for your constant advice
v
and help over the past years. Pam Andrews, thank you for all that you have done and do
for our department, especially for the Center for Physical Activity and Health.
I would also like to thank my parents, Mike and Jo Post and the rest of my family.
You have all demonstrated with it means to be a hard worker. You have all shown me
overwhelming love and support over the years. Mom and dad; thank you for always
answering when I call and driving the hours and hours to visit when I am in need. Words
cannot explain my thanks to you both! I love you all.
Lastly, I would like to thank Tyler. You have been an endless rock for me during
my time here in Tennessee. Thank you for pushing me to pursue my dreams and for
always letting me know that you are there for me. Thank you for constantly reminding
me that God conquers all. I love you more than words can describe.
vi
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To examine the associations among perceived motor competence (PMC),
motor competence (MC), physical activity, and health-related physical fitness during
middle childhood and early adolescence. Method: Participants were 47, 10-15 year old
youth. Each participant completed two visits in East Tennessee or northwest Ohio.
During these visits, the participants completed the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT-2)
Analysis Test for Motor Proficiency, Harter’s PMC questionnaire, and the
FITNESSGRAM battery for health-related physical fitness. The Actigraph GT3X+
accelerometer was used to measure physical activity. Results: There were significant
associations among health-related physical fitness and both motor percentile (rs = 0.44, p
< 0.01) and PMC (rs = 0.32, p < 0.05). An association was found among PMC and MC
(rs = 0.47, p < 0.05). There were no significant associations among average daily MVPA
and any of the other variables. Conclusions: High MC and PMC appear to be associated
with higher levels of health-related physical fitness. It is important for children to learn
fundamental motor skills to possibly participate in more complex motor skills related to
physical fitness and for children to be encouraged in a positive manner while
participating in physical activity to possibly increase their PMC.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
Research Question .........................................................................................................5
Hypothesis......................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................6
2.1 Importance of Motor Development in Children and Adolescents ...........................9
2.2 Relationship Between Motor Development and Physical Activity .......................12
2.3 Motor Skills Foreshadowing Physical Activity Patterns as Adults .......................14
2.4 Relationship Between Motor Development and Physical Fitness .........................15
2.5 Obese Children versus Healthy Children Motor Skill ...........................................20
2.6 Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition .........................21
2.7 Perceived Motor Competence (PMC) ....................................................................22
2.8 Physical Activity Accelerometry ...........................................................................24
2.9 FITNESSGRAM ....................................................................................................24
2.9.1 Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER) ........................25
2.10 Summary and Further Research ...........................................................................26
CHAPTER 3: MANUSCRIPT........................................................................................27
Abstract ........................................................................................................................27
Introduction ..................................................................................................................28
Method .........................................................................................................................31
Study Participants ........................................................................................................31
Protocol ........................................................................................................................32
Visit 1....................................................................................................................32
Visit 2....................................................................................................................34
Statistical Analyses ......................................................................................................35
Results ..........................................................................................................................37
Participant Characteristics .....................................................................................37
BOT-2 Assessment (Motor Competence) ..............................................................37
Perceived Motor Competence (PMC) Assessment ................................................38
Physical Activity Assessment ................................................................................39
Health-Related Physical Fitness Assessment.........................................................39
Discussion ....................................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................49
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................50
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX A: Recruitment Flyer The University of Tennessee-Knoxville, TN .......57
APPENDIX B: Recruitment Flyer for Saint Henry Middle School Saint Henry, OH 59
APPENDIX C: Informed Parental Consent for The University of TennesseeKnoxville, TN ........................................................................................................61
APPENDIX D: Participant Assent Form for The University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
TN ................................................................................................................................65
APPENDIX E: Informed Parental Consent for Episcopal School of Knoxville, TN ..67
APPENDIX F: Participant Assent Form for Episcopal School of Knoxville, TN ......71
viii
APPENDIX G: Informed Parental Consent for Saint Henry Middle School Saint
Henry, OH ..............................................................................................................73
APPENDIX H: Participant Assent Form for Saint Henry Middle School Saint Henry,
OH ................................................................................................................................77
APPENDIX I: Perceived Motor Competence Questionnaire (10-12 Year Olds) ........79
APPENDIX J: Perceived Motor Competence Questionnaire (13-15 Year Olds)........81
APPENDIX K: Placement of the Accelerometer ........................................................83
APPENDIX L: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter ......................................85
VITA .................................................................................................................................87
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Participants ...................................................... 37
Table 2: Classification of Motor Skill ........................................................................ 38
Table 3: PMC Average Score for Visit 1 and Visit 2 ................................................. 38
Table 4: Distribution of the Participants for the Health-Related Physical Fitness ..... 39
Table 5: Spearman Rank-Order Correlations Coefficients Among Fitness, Motor, PMC,
and Physical activity Variables ................................................................................... 40
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Stodden et al., 2008 Conceptual Model Dynamic Relationship between Motor
Skill Competence and Physical Activity..............................................................................8
Figure 2: Kohl et al. 2013 Changing Emphasis of Physical Activity During Childhood
and Adolescence ................................................................................................................11
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Fundamental motor skills are foundational movements that provide the critical
basis for children’s motor development and engagement in physical activity (Holfelder &
Schott, 2014). Motor development and eventual motor competence—the mastery of
motor skills—appear to drive physical activity levels in middle to late childhood
(Stodden et al., 2008). Unfortunately, recent research suggests that there is a decline from
childhood into adolescence in meeting the physical activity recommended guidelines for
children and adolescents accumulating moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA)
per day (Troiano et al., 2008). Although most children develop fundamental motor skills
before the age of nine, some do not achieve competence and face increasingly limited
opportunities for physical activity (Strong et al., 2005). This creates a problematic cycle
in which decreasing physical activity undermines motor competence, which in turn
contributes to less physical activity.
Lack of regular physical activity combined with the under-development of
fundamental motor skills create a skill proficiency barrier that also compromises the
development of basic and specialized motor skills and sports-specific skills (Seefeldt,
1980; Metcalfe & Clark, 2002). Basic motor skills include skills such as catching,
kicking, throwing, running, leaping, etc. Specialized motor skills and sport specific motor
skills are basic motor skills that have been refined for sports that are task specific and
include skills such as shooting a basketball into a hoop, hitting a golf ball, agility running
through cones, etc. Transitional and sport-specific skills are necessary as children move
2
toward participation in more complex skill-related activities associated with beneficial
lifetime physical activities, such as sport, dance, and other recreational activities (Strong
et al., 2005). Children developing this skill barrier will presumably be disadvantaged as
they grow into adulthood, facing an increasingly challenging problem of establishing and
maintaining healthy physical activity levels. Moreover, the relationship between physical
activity and motor competence appears to become stronger from early to later childhood
(Stodden & Goodway, 2007; Wrotniak, Epstein, Dorn, Jones, & Kondilis, 2006; Salmon,
Ball, Hume, Booth, & Crawford, 2008). There are many factors that could possibly
influence the relationship between motor competence and physical activity. It is critical
to understand the relationship among motor competence, physical activity, perceived
motor competence (PMC), and how these factors influence health-related physical fitness
(Stodden et al., 2009).
Perceived motor competence is an individual’s belief in his or her abilities in
different domains of motor skills (Spessato, Gabbard, Robinson, & Valentini, 2012).
Children with low perceived motor competence may be reluctant to participate in
physical activity, especially as they grow older and face a widening gap between their
motor skill level and that of their peers (Stodden et al., 2008). It is important to encourage
children to participate in physical activities that promote both actual and perceived motor
competence. One approach to facilitating physical activity in children with low motor
competence is to use progressions from simple to more complex activities (Barnett et al.,
2009). A progression from a simple to a more complex activity would be catching a
tennis ball with two hands to catching a tennis ball with one hand or balancing on both
3
feet, on in front of another, to balancing on one foot. Children who learn the foundational
skills are thought to be able to progress to the more complex skills. This, in turn, will lead
to a higher level of physical activity because these children are better able to participate
in a larger variety of physical activities, which could then lead to higher physical fitness
levels.
Health-related physical fitness is another potential factor for the relationship
between motor competence and physical activity (Stodden et al., 2008). Health-related
fitness is comprised of aerobic capacity, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and
flexibility. Children who are more physically active, develop higher levels of healthrelated physical fitness, and also had a higher level of motor competence (Haga, 2009;
Wrotniak et al., 2006). Moreover, children with lower motor competence display lower
levels of physical fitness in comparison to children with higher levels of health-related
physical fitness as they mature and develop (Haga, 2009; Wrotniak et al., 2006).
Therefore, it is thought that increasing the motor competence of adolescents may lead to
increased physical activity during adulthood (Stodden & Roberton, 2009). With the
widespread prevalence of obesity, it is important to help youth develop motor
competency during childhood and adolescence to better foster healthy physical activity
and fitness levels during adulthoods. As children progress into adolescence, their
perception of themselves greatly influences their health-related physical fitness because
they are largely impacted by how their peers view them, leading to their level of
participation in sport-related physical activities that increase complex motor skills and
overall health-related physical fitness (Stodden & Roberton, 2009).
4
Lacking health-related physical fitness, motor competence, and perceived motor
competence can lead to obesity. There is an increasingly widening gap between normalweight children and overweight/obese children’s gross motor skills because of the inverse
relationship between overweight/obesity and motor skills in children (D’Hondt et al.,
2013). Individuals with a higher amount of body fat (overweight/obese), struggle more
with performing motor skill tasks and they have a slower progression of gaining their
motor skills because of the excess adipose tissue (D’Hondt et al., 2013; Carrel et al.,
2012). Therefore, obesity contributes to children not learning foundational motor skills,
which causes low motor competency, and in turn, leads to an even more sedentary
lifestyle (Gentier et al., 2013). As children age, those individuals who are
overweight/obese are thought to participate in less activities because they have a lower
motor competency, which contributes to not beginning an active and healthy lifestyle
because of their low motor skill level unless they are forced to do so.
The relationships between health-related physical fitness, motor competence,
perceived motor competence, and physical activity is not well understood, particularly in
the adolescent age group. Although research has identified positive relationships among
health-related physical fitness, motor competence, and physical activity in young children
(3-5 years old) and during middle childhood (5-10 years old), research including these
variables during late childhood and adolescence (10-15 years old) is limited (Stodden &
Goodway, 2007; Stodden et al., 2008; Caspersen & Christenson, 1985). Therefore, this
study will seek to extend the body of research investigating the associations among
5
health-related physical fitness, motor competence, perceived motor competence, and
physical activity during middle childhood and the adolescent time period.
The purpose of the proposed study is to examine the associations between healthrelated physical fitness, motor competence, perceived motor competence, and physical
activity during middle childhood and early adolescence (10-15 years old). It is
hypothesized that there will be significant, positive associations between all of the
variables (motor competence, health-related physical fitness, perceived motor
competence, and physical activity.
Research Question
What associations exist among motor competency, health-related physical fitness,
perceived motor competence, and physical activity during middle childhood and early
adolescence (10-15 years old)?
Hypothesis
It is hypothesized that there will be significant, positive associations among all of
the variables (motor competence, health-related physical fitness, perceived motor
competence, and physical activity) during this age period.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Motor competence is an individual’s movement coordination quality when
performing a variety of different motor skills that range on a scale from gross to fine
motor skills (Holfelder & Schott, 2014). Improved motor development is associated with
higher levels of physical activity and higher fitness levels. More favorable body
composition is also related to better motor development. These relationships have been
established in children (<9 years old), but limited research has been conducted in later
childhood and adolescence (10 – 15 years old). Therefore, this thesis will contribute to
the literature by examining the associations among motor development, physical activity,
and physical fitness in 10 -15 year old youth.
Regular physical activity has been shown to have health benefits for all
individuals, especially children and adolescents. Physical activity is defined as any sort of
bodily movement that results in energy expenditure (Caspersen & Christenson, 1985).
Evidence-based guidelines for physical activity were developed based on research that
has shown that physical activity has a positive influence on children in regards to
musculoskeletal health, cardiovascular health, adiposity, and mental health (Strong et al.,
2005). The 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans were developed based on
this research and recommend 60 minutes or more of either moderate- or vigorousintensity daily, aerobic physical activity, and should include vigorous-intensity physical
activity at least 3 days a week for children and adolescents (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services). It is a well-known fact that adolescents in the 10 to 15 year old age
7
group, show a decline in physical activity compared to the younger children (Nader,
Bradley, Houts, McRitchie, & O’Brien, 2008; Troiano et al., 2008). Interestingly, only
42% of children and 8% of adolescents in the United States meet these recommendations
for daily physical activity (Troiano et al., 2008). There are many reasons that can
potentially contribute to this decline. Factors that may impact activity levels include:
health-related physical fitness (set of physical attributes achieved over time), motor
competence (ability to execute motor tasks), and perceived motor competence
(perception of ability to perform motor tasks) (Caspersen & Christenson, 1985).
Although children typically develop their fundamental motor skills before the age
of nine, some children do not and continue onto adolescence without the essential motor
skills needed in order to be physically active. Stodden et al (2008) developed a heuristic
model that is applicable to children up to age 10 years old. Figure 1 illustrates this model
and represents the important concepts identified in the literature, but have not been
systematically put into one model to show why so many individuals are sedentary
(Stodden et al., 2008). The conceptual model describes the relationship between motor
competence, perceived motor competence, physical activity, and health related physical
fitness. This model has been researched and validated Stodden et al. (2008) for the
sections dedicated to early childhood (EC). This model has not, however, been validated
for children ages 10-15 years old. Stodden et al. (2008) theorize that the relationship
between physical activity and motor competence will strengthen throughout middle and
late childhood and that additional factors such as perceived motor competence, healthrelated physical fitness, and obesity will influence this relationship. Therefore, further
8
Figure 1: This figure reflects the model proposed by Stodden et al. (2008) explaining
the proposed relationship between motor competence, perceived motor competence,
health related physical fitness, and physical activity of EC (early childhood) and
MC-LC (middle childhood through late childhood) and how these relationships
affect the risk of obesity.
9
research must be done in order to validate this model so that researchers can use this
model to describe the associations among physical activity, motor competence, perceived
motor competence, physical activity, and health related fitness.
The physical fitness status and physical activity level of each individual child is
important because it can affect the child’s current health and can pave the way for future
health. Children typically learn their fundamental motor skills up to age 9. The largely
anaerobic games that are played with children during that age are what help the child
learn the basic motor skills and more specialized motor skills (Strong et al., 2005). The
children that do not participant in physical activity as often may not completely gain all
of the fundamental fine and gross motor skills that are needed for coordination
throughout the 10-15 year old age group (pubertal transition age group). There needs to
be further research done in the area of motor development and physical activity level of
children ages 10-15 to determine if they have gained the essential motor skills needed and
if this affects their physical activity level.
2.1 Importance of Motor Development in Children and Adolescents
As children approach the ages of 10-15 (pubertal transition age), more organized
activities are available for them to participant in. These physical activity programs are
more structured, which require a higher level of motor skills (i.e. sport specific). Most
children develop basic movement patterns and skills during their preschool and early
school ages (Strong et al., 2005). As these basic skills are acquired, children participate in
more complex activities, further increasing their motor skill competency and
10
coordination. There is less of an emphasis on motor development skills during
adolescence, but many of these youth refine these motor skills and build on them to
contribute to their physically active lifestyle, which can lead to a higher level of healthrelated physical fitness (Strong et al., 2005; Barnett, Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, & Beard,
2010). There is a change of emphasis from motor skills in physical activity to emphasis
on health, fitness, and behavioral outcomes of physical activity at the age of 10 years old
(Figure 2).
If some children do not develop their basic motor skills before adolescence, then
they may miss out on building upon those motor skills to create a physically active and
healthy lifestyle. If children have not learned their necessary motor skills at a young age,
then they may not be able to expand upon those motor skills at an adolescent level. If
these adolescents do not have the proper fundamental motor skills, then they will have
trouble at the 15-18 year old age group in increasing their overall fitness, especially
aerobic fitness because of their lack of being able to participate in complex motor skills
(Strong et al., 2005). Fundamental motor skills are the movement patterns of different
body parts that are foundational for more complex and specialized movements. Complex
motor skills are movements that are carried out when the brain, nervous system, and
muscles are working together. Therefore, individuals must have the foundational motor
skills before being able to participate in the complex motor skills that many activities
made for adolescents require.
11
Figure 2: This figure reflects the changing emphasis of physical activity during
childhood and adolescence (Kohl, Institute of Medicine, Cook, & Kohl, 2013).
12
2.2 Relationship Between Motor Development and Physical Activity
Physical activity can have a strong impact motor development in children and
adolescents. Preadolescence is the perfect timing to incorporate cognitive and motor
skills tasks because this is when children will respond with the most positive reaction,
possibly increasing neuromuscular development needed for motor skill (Meyer,
Faigenbaum, & Best, 2015). If the baseline of neurocognitive skill has been established,
improved motor skill throughout adolescence facilitates the desired skills needed to
create a physically active lifestyle as an adult (Meyer, Faigenbaum, & Best, 2015).
Wrotniak et al. (2006) studied 8-10 year old children and their motor skills in relation to
their physical activity level focusing on motor movement skills because of the likelihood
of that being a major causal link to the low physical fitness and physical activity levels of
children as they age. There are many elements that factor into why children are less
active as they age. Barnett et al. (2009) performed a longitudinal study and found
children who participated a physical activity intervention of showed significant
differences post-intervention in being able to better perform a kicking motor skill, but not
other skills such as catching, throwing, galloping, jumping, and hopping. Furthermore,
after the six-year follow up, there were no significant differences in physical activity
level between the control and experimental group, but there were positive correlation
trends between motor skill and previous physical activity level from the intervention
(Barnett et al., 2009). It was believed that there was no significant trend because there
was no week to week monitoring of these children to learn the motor skills through
13
physical activity in order to increase their physical activity levels. Motor proficiency is
positively associated with physical activity in children 8-10 years old (Wrotniak et al.,
2006). The children that had the highest physical activity levels had the highest motor
movement skill level. Running speed, agility, and broad jump are important to motor
proficiency and physical activity relationship because these skills were where the higher
the children scored in these areas, the better the motor proficiency of the child (Wrotniak
et al., 2006). Motor proficiency is also negatively associated with sedentary activity
because this study found that the higher the motor skill level, the less likely the child is to
become sedentary (Wrotniak et al., 2006). Williams et al. (2008) also found that children
with poorer motor skills are less active than children with greater developed motor skills,
which foreshadows the lifestyle children will have as they age into adolescence.
Therefore there is a high level of importance to be focused on children and their need to
develop essential motor skills for their future.
Stroth, Hille, Spitzer, & Reinhardt (2009) examined the visuospatial and motor
skill and physical activity relationship on young adults. The correlation between physical
activity level of young adults and their relationship with motor skill and visuospatial
benefit from physical activity was examined. Spatial processing is higher in that of
individuals with a higher physical activity level (Stroth et al., 2009). Spatial processing is
imperative in motor skill development and, therefore, increasing the level of physical
activity.
Physical activity or motor skill interventions can prove successful if done
correctly. Salmon et al. (2008) concluded from their motor skill intervention study that
14
children, 10-years-old, who were in the fundamental movement skills group had
significantly more counts per day in moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity
min per day, 10 min per day and 8 in per day respectively, post intervention. Therefore, it
can be concluded that increasing motor skills for children and adolescents will increase
their physical activity significantly as they age (Salmon et al., 2008). It is important to
emphasize games and fun to increase enjoyment of learning the motor skills for children
in order to increase adherence to the program over time. Females especially had more
favorable body mass index (BMI) outcomes post motor skill intervention compared to the
control group (Salmon et al., 2008). Females tend to benefit the most from motor skill
interventions because they have more space for improvement, seeing as child and
adolescent females tend to have lower overall motor competency skills than males (Zask
et al., 2012; Salmon et al., 2008). It is important to incorporate motor skills into everyday
activities with children as they move into adolescence in order to increase their motor
competency, which would in turn increase their physical activity.
2.3 Motor Skills Foreshadowing Physical Activity Patterns as Adults
Increasing motor skill development of children and adolescents will most likely
increase their physical activity as they age (Zask et al., 2012; Barnett et al., 2010). It is
important that children reach mastery and near mastery performance of several motor
skills, such as throwing, jumping, and catching, by the time they are 10 years of age. If
children are not proficient in these motor skills by the time they reach 10 years old, they
stand the chance of delaying their motor competency because they need these basic skills
15
for subsequent complex motor skills, thus contributing to a possibly sedentary lifestyle
(Barnett et al., 2010; Stodden et al., 2008). The adolescents that develop these basic
motor skills enables them to have an active lifestyle, but a barrier may be in place for the
children that do not develop these motor skills (Metcalfe & Clark, 2002; Stodden, True,
Langendorfer, & Gao, 2012).
Not only does motor skill increase the amount of physical activity a child does,
but it physical activity also increases overall movement skill proficiency, especially in
obese and overweight children (Cliff et al., 2011). Children becoming more active in
physical activities that they like to do, can then foreshadow them being more active into
adulthood and decreasing the chance of metabolic diseases. Therefore, motor
development plays a crucial role in the physical activity patterns of adulthood
individually.
2.4 Relationship Between Motor Development and Physical Fitness
Many studies do not examine the foundations of motor skill because they are
focused solely on physical activity in children. Stodden et al. (2008) made researchers
aware of the importance of motor development in regards to children’s physical fitness
level. Exercise is a subcategory of physical activity that is strategic and structured and is
used as an objective in the improvement or maintenance of health-related physical fitness
(Caspersen & Christenson, 1985). Many individuals disregard that children need to learn
the foundational skills before they can participate in many physical activities.
16
The relationship between motor skill development and physical fitness has been
researched time and time again. Chaddock et al. (2012) measured functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the aerobic fitness level of an individual and
his/her brain function. Brain function is directly linked to motor development. In the past,
higher fit children have been linked to superior cognitive control in these children and
across their lifespan (Chaddock et al., 2012). It can be concluded that a higher fitness
level of an individual child will have higher motor control. Chaddock et al. (2012) also
concludes that it is assumed that the aerobic fitness level of an individual is associated
with neural circuitry that supports motor skill development during childhood. Making this
connection between motor skill development and physical fitness level at a young age is
tremendously necessary for this study. This study also showed that the higher fit children
were able to meet the demands of the more motor control demanding tasks (Chaddock et
al., 2012). It can be concluded from this study that children with a higher physical fitness
level are better developed in their motor skills because higher fitness levels have a
positive relationship with the motor development and cognition.
Haga (2009) stated in her study that focused on ages 9-10 years old that higher
motor competence indicated an increased physical fitness level in children. Haga (2009)
focused on children ages 9-10, rather than the adolescent age group. Not only does motor
competence indicate the physical fitness level of a child, but it also indicates how much
physical activity that child is most likely to participate in (Haga, 2009). Determining how
physically active a child is may be indicate the approximate physical fitness level of the
child. It is assumed in many cases that adolescents who did not develop their motor
17
coordination as children will eventually grow into coordination as they age. This study
proved that assumption wrong in showing that children with low motor control did not
regain their motor control as they aged, instead they fell even farther behind than the
children with a higher motor control level (Haga, 2009). Many children will not
participate in different physical activities because they do not have the motor control to
do so. Therefore, they do not learn these normal childhood motor development skills that
the other children have learned.
Pontifex et al. (2011) performed a study examining the relationship between
cardiorespiratory fitness and cognitive control of preadolescent children. This
relationship also included the motor skill level of the children. Lower fit children
exhibited a less successful motor skill task performance than the higher fit children
(Pontifex et al., 2011). This shows that children with less motor competency are less
coordinated and have a lower fitness level. The study also showed that the higher fit
children were able to maintain the accurate motor skill response for a longer period of
time than the lower fit children (Pontifex et al., 2011). This shows a positively correlation
between motor competence, cognition, and physical fitness level.
Many children and adolescent physical activity and overall health fitness
programs are focusing their efforts on improving physical activity levels rather than
focusing on the motor development and physical fitness level of these children. Hands,
Larkin, Parker, Straker, Perry (2009) examined the relationship of physical activity,
motor competence, and health-related fitness of adolescents. Many adolescents are not
participating in many of the physical activities set aside for them in programs to improve
18
their health because they do not possess the motor skills to complete the range of
activities that are needed to perform correctly and efficiently. In turn, these children with
low motor skill tend to be less active, leading to a lower fitness level. The Hands et al.
(2009) study found that adolescents who are physically active have a significantly higher
physical fitness level than adolescents who are less physically active. This shows the
connection between physical activity and physical fitness level of adolescents. The study
then states that aerobic fitness level was related to the element of motor competence
(Hands et al., 2009).
Stodden et al. (2009) examined the link between motor skill competence and
physical fitness in adolescents. This is the same age group that the current study is
examining. Increasing adolescents’ motor skill competence will increase their physical
fitness level as an adolescent and adult (Stodden et al., 2009). It is believed that
adolescence is an important time period to ensure that the individual has the proper motor
skills needed in order to increase health-related physical fitness. This is crucial because it
will allow a smoother transition from adolescence to adulthood in regards to increasing
health-related physical fitness (Stodden et al., 2009). If adolescents are proficient in their
motor skills at that point in the their life, then they are more likely to be more physically
fit as they grow into adulthood because they will be able to perform in physical activities
that require high motor skills.
Vlahov, Baghurst, & Mwavita (2014) studied further research of motor
development and its effect in predicting high school health-related fitness in a perspective
study of gross motor skills. They examined the motor skill level of preschool students
19
and used the findings to compare to the physical fitness level of the same children eleven
years later. Vlahov et al. (2014) concluded that the object control skills are essential in
predicting health-related fitness of children when they are adults. This is important for
individuals planning children programming in order to increase the motor competence
and physical activity levels of children.
According to Zask et al. (2012) many girls do not develop object control skills,
but it is assumed that they have developed these skills. Many female children are not
exposed to the same experiences as the males are. Therefore, many of the girls do not
practice the object control skills; not achieving proficiency in those skills (Zask et al.,
2012). Considering that Vlahov et al. (2014) states the importance on object control
skills, it is imperative that females practice the object control skills in order to not fall
behind in their motor skills compared to the boys. These implications can be further used
to develop a program for children to increase physical activity and physical fitness, while
increasing motor competence level.
If children do not develop their motor skills at a young age, they can develop
Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). Faught, Hay, Cairney, & Flouris (2005)
looked at the delays that a child with DCD has in regards to physical fitness. This study is
relevant because some of the children who do not develop their essential motor skills
develop DCD, eventually lead to a low cardiovascular fitness level and overall lower
health-related physical fitness. When these children have a low cardiovascular fitness
level, they tend to be less active and at a higher health risk (Faught et al., 2005). This
study shows a clear linkage between motor skill, and lack there of, and its relationship
20
with physical fitness in children. Many children avoid being physically active because
they lack the skills in the first place that the other children have already gained (Faught et
al., 2005). This continues throughout age because the children are already behind and are
looked upon with the assumption that they should already have the motor skill
development as the other higher fit children.
2.5 Obese Children versus Healthy Children Motor Skill
Overweight children are at a higher risk of chronic health diseases, especially
cardiovascular disease. Krombholz (2013) compared overweight and healthy weight
preschool children and their motor competence. Other research in the past had concluded
that overweight children do not participate in as much physical activity as healthy weight
children. This study concluded that overweight children tend to participate in less
physical activities when they grow older and have a lower motor competence
(Krombholz, 2013; Labbrozzi et al., 2012; Spessto 2012). It is inferred that children
participate in less physical activity because they do not have the motor skills to be
successful in that activity compared to the other children who are at a healthier weight
and have a higher motor competence. Obese children are at a disadvantage in motor skills
because these children tend to be less engaged in physical activity, disabling themselves
from improving their physical fitness. Morano et al. (2012) suggests enjoyment of the
physical activity and increased perception of motor abilities is what will increase physical
activity among obese/overweight and inactive children.
21
2.6 Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2)
The BOT-2 is a test widely and commonly used to determine motor competency
in children ages 4 through 21 years old. This test uses a structure that highlights motor
performance in broad functional areas; including both fine and gross motor skills that
provides a reliable measurement of overall motor proficiency (Bruininks & Bruininks,
2013). The fine motor skills examined tests to control and coordination of the distal
musculature of the hands and fingers (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2013). The gross motor
skills examined the control and coordination of the arms and hands, large musculature
areas of the body (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2013). These fine and gross motor skills are
used together to determine the motor competence of the participant. The BOT-2 test
consists of fine motor precision (e.g. cutting out a circle, connecting dots), fine motor
integration (e.g. copying a star, copying a square), manual dexterity (e.g. transferring
pennies, sorting cards, stringing blocks), bilateral coordination (e.g. tapping foot and
finger, jumping jacks), balance (e.g. walking forward on a line, standing on one leg on a
balance beam), running speed and agility (e.g. shuttle run, one-legged side hop), upperlimb coordination (e.g. throwing a ball at a target, catching a tossed ball), and strength
(e.g. standing long jump, sit ups) (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2013). A score and percentile
are determined from these tests to determine motor proficiency. The BOT-2 has been
deemed reliable and valid in concurrence with several other known motor proficiency
tests, such as the Movement ABC motor proficiency test (Miyahara & Clarkson, 2005;
Croce, Horvat, & McCarthy, 2001; Horvat & McCarthy, 2001).
22
2.7 Perceived Motor Competence (PMC)
Perceived motor competence is an individual’s awareness and confidence of their
capability to perform fine and gross motor tasks (Khodaverdi, 2013). Perceived motor
competence can play a crucial role in how physical active or physically fit an individual
is, especially adolescents because adolescents have shifted to a more cognitive
development and more refined way of gaging their motor capabilities (Stodden et al.,
2008). Perceived motor competence is developed socially by previous experiences and
feedback received by peers and other social influences (Harter, 1978). Having these
influences, social media, family, friends, peers, etc., can pressure children into having a
misconstrued perception of their motor competence. Most children do not accurately
assess their motor skills, and in many cases overweight children perceive their motor
competence lower than what it truly is (Spessato et al., 2012; Harter, 1978). This finding
is important because many children need confidence in their abilities to perform a
physical task before they perform it.
The encouragement or discouragement of physical activity levels is important in
the development of motor skill competence (Pontifex et al., 2011). Many children are
encouraged to try activities that are well beyond their realm of motor skill. Many sport
activities involve higher motor skill demand, and the coaching/teaching techniques can
negatively influence a child if not done properly (Strong et al., 2005). Encouraging
children towards activities that will further their motor development and away from
activities that will discourage them is essential. This proposed theory is that motor skill
competence will increase and physical activity will increase over developmental time
23
(Pontifex et al., 2011). Pontifex et al. (2011) also mentions a motor competence critical
threshold where children could either be hindered away from physical activity or
encouraged into physical activity if they are not in the age appropriate motor competence
level. This is why it is extremely imperative that children develop their motor skills at
their own rate, participating in activities that coincide with their skill level.
If a child is confident in his/her capability to perform a physical task, the child is
most likely to not be afraid to perform that task in front of peers or other individuals. This
scenario is most applicable to children and adolescents because most of physical
activities are performed in-group settings, such as physical education classes, athletics,
clubs, etc. It is important to promote opportunities to increase motor competency, but also
opportunities to reinforce positive perceptions of the child’s motor capabilities (Spessato
et al., 2012). Children who have a higher perceived motor competence are more likely to
participate in more physical activities, likewise, children with a lower perceived motor
competence are less likely to participate in physical activities (Biddle, Whitehead, &
Nevill, 2005; Davison, Schmalz, & Downs, 2010; Stodden et al., 2008). There is a
significant correlation between children who have greater perception of motor
competency and their level of physical activity (Labbrozzi et al., 2012; Stodden et al.,
2008). Not only do children with a lower motor competence have a lower physical
activity level, but they also have a lower cardiorespiratory fitness (Hardy, ReintenReynolds, Espinel, Zask, & Okely, 2012). This can set children and adolescents up for an
unhealthy lifestyle as they progress into adulthood. Therefore, influencing a child’s
24
perception of themselves of their motor skills can greatly impact their physical activity
level, later in life impacting their weight and health status.
2.8 Physical Activity Accelerometry
An objective source of monitoring physical activity is an accelerometer. An
objective way of measuring is more accurate than subjective. The GT3X Actigraph
Accelerometer has been validated in children ages 10-15 years old and has been
determined to be accurate in monitoring physical activity (Hänggi, Phillips, & Rowlands,
2013; Trost, Loprinzi, Moore, & Pfeiffer, 2011). The validated cut points used for
children are the Evenson cut points (Evenson, Catellier, Gill, Ondrak, & McMurray,
2008). Using objective monitoring helps get accurate measures of moderate-to-vigorous
physical activity (MVPA) counts to use in data interpretation.
2.9 FITNESSGRAM
The FITNESSGRAM was developed by the Cooper Institute for children as a
health-related youth fitness assessment using criterion-referenced standards (Cooper
Institute, 2013). This assessment consists of a Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular
Endurance Run (PACER), curl-ups, push-ups, sit-and-reach flexibility, and body mass
index (BMI) measurements. The PACER was adapted from a 20-meter shuttle run that
simulates a treadmill graded exercise test (Liu, Plowman, & Looney, 1992). The PACER
is a 20-meter shuttle run to a cadence. The cadence increases each minute and
participants run until volitional fatigue or until failure to cover the 20-meter distance
25
within the apportioned time on two consecutive shuttles. It was designed to provide a
comprehensive physical fitness assessment for children and youth, regardless of gender
or age, including cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength, muscular endurance, flexibility,
and body composition (Cooper Institute, 2013). Each participant receives a score within
each category of the FITNESSGRAM and one overall health fitness score. These scores
are compared among criterion-referenced standards associated with good health have
been established and validated among many populations of children (Cooper Institute,
2013; Laurson, Saint-Maurice, Karsai, & Csányi, 2015; Freedson, Cureton, & Health,
2000; Welk, De Saint-Maurice Maduro, Laurson, & Brown, 2011a; Welk, Going,
Morrow, & Meredith, 2011b). These standards have been found to be accurate and
representative of the health levels of children and adolescents throughout the world
(Laurson et al., 2015; Welk et al., 2011a; Welk et al., 2011b). The FITNESSGRAM is
used in physical education classes throughout the country for individuals up to 18 years
old. This testing allows individualized testing for each participant with accurate results
and indicators of health fitness zones. Body mass index (BMI) can be used as a proxy for
body composition because it has been validated using BMI for children and adolescents
by using optimal, universal cut points that do not decrease accuracy of determining health
status (Cooper Institute, 2013).
2.9.1 Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER)
The PACER is a reliable and valid indication of cardiovascular fitness. Leger,
Mercier, Gadoury, & Lambert (1988) found the 20-meter shuttle test (20-MST) to be
26
reliable in children with a correlation coefficient of 0.89. A regression equation
developed by Leger et al. (1988) is used to estimate the aerobic capacity, creating
criterion standards for the PACER portion of the FITNESSGRAM. The PACER been
compared to the treadmill graded exercise test in regards to VO2peak. Van Mechelen,
Hlobil, & Kemper (1986) concluded that that 20-MST, or PACER, is a valid tool to use
when assessing maximal aerobic power in children. Not only was maximal aerobic power
evaluated, but researchers also assessed maximal heart rate in children in regards to the
PACER. Voss & Sandercock (2009) determined that the 20 MST, or PACER, provokes a
maximal effort of children ages 11- to 16-years old by causing children to reach their
maximum heart rate, regardless of weight class or health status. Scott, Thompson, & Coe
(2013) also found that PACER and treadmill both elicited a peak response in kids 10-15
years old.
2.10 Summary and Further Research
In summary, the motor development of a child and adolescent is vital in the
individual developing a healthy life. The model developed by Stodden et al. (2008) is
validated for children up to age 10 years old and adults 18-25 years old, but not for the
ages 10 – 15 years old (adolescence). The conceptual model describes the relationship
between motor competence, perceived motor competence, physical activity, and health
related fitness. Therefore, further research must be done in order to completely validate
this model so that researchers can use it in further research as a strong tool.
27
CHAPTER 3
MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the associations among perceived motor competence (PMC),
motor competence (MC), physical activity, and health-related physical fitness during
middle childhood and early adolescence. Method: Participants were 47, 10-15 year old
youth. Each participant completed two visits in East Tennessee or northwest Ohio.
During these visits, the participants completed the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT-2)
Analysis Test for Motor Proficiency, Harter’s PMC questionnaire, and the
FITNESSGRAM battery for health-related physical fitness. The Actigraph GT3X+
accelerometer was used to measure physical activity. Results: There were significant
associations among health-related physical fitness and both motor percentile (rs = 0.44, p
< 0.01) and PMC (rs = 0.32, p < 0.05). An association was found among PMC and MC
(rs = 0.47, p < 0.05). There were no significant associations among average daily MVPA
and any of the other variables. Conclusions: High MC and PMC appear to be associated
with higher levels of health-related physical fitness. It is important for children to learn
fundamental motor skills to possibly participate in more complex motor skills related to
physical fitness and for children to be encouraged in a positive manner while
participating in physical activity to possibly increase their PMC.
28
Introduction
Fundamental motor skills are foundational movements that provide the critical
basis for children’s motor development and engagement in physical activity. Motor
development and eventual motor competence—the mastery of motor skills—appear to
drive physical activity levels in middle to late childhood (Stodden et al., 2008).
Unfortunately, recent research suggests that there is a decline from childhood into
adolescence in meeting the recommended moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
(MVPA) minutes per day guidelines for children and adolescents (Troiano et al., 2008;
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). Although most children develop
fundamental motor skills before the age of nine, some do not achieve motor competence,
which may lead to decreasing the type and time spent in physical activity because
children may not be willing or able to participate in exercise, sports, and games with their
peers (Strong et al., 2005).
Lack of regular physical activity combined with under-development of
fundamental motor skills creates a skill proficiency barrier that also compromises the
development of basic and specialized motor skills and sports-specific skills (Seefeldt,
1980; Metcalfe & Clark, 2002). Children experiencing this skill barrier will presumably
be disadvantaged as they grow into adulthood, facing an increasingly challenging
problem of establishing and maintaining healthy physical activity levels, along with
increasing their health-related physical fitness. It is critical to understand the relationship
among motor competence, physical activity, perceived motor competence (PMC), and
how these factors influence health-related physical fitness (Stodden et al., 2009).
29
PMC is an individual’s belief in his or her abilities in different domains of motor
skills (Spessato et al., 2012). Children with low PMC may be reluctant to participate in
physical activity, especially as they grow older, consequently possibly face a widening
gap between their objective motor skill level and health-related physical fitness compared
to that of their peers (Stodden et al., 2008). It is important to encourage children to
participate in physical activities that promote both actual and PMC. One approach to
facilitating physical activity in children with low motor competence is to use progressions
from simple to more complex activities (Barnett et al., 2009). PMC is also influential on
health-related physical fitness. PMC can either positively or negatively impact a child’s
health-related physical fitness because the children who have better motor skills typically
view themselves more positively; allowing them to participate in more physical activity
and become more physically fit (Stodden & Goodway, 2007).
Health-related physical fitness is an important outcome related to motor
competence and PMC (Stodden & Roberton, 2009; Haga, 2009). Health-related fitness is
comprised of aerobic capacity, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility.
Children who are more physically active, develop higher levels of health-related physical
fitness, and also have a higher level of motor competence (Haga, 2009; Wrotniak et al.,
2006). Moreover, children with lower motor competence display lower levels of physical
fitness in comparison to the children with higher levels of health-related physical fitness
as they mature and develop (Haga, 2009; Wrotniak et al., 2006). Therefore, it is thought
that increasing the motor competence of adolescents may lead to increased physical
activity during adulthood (Stodden & Roberton, 2009). As children progress into
30
adolescence, their perception of themselves greatly influences their health-related
physical fitness because they are largely impacted by how their peers positively or
negatively view them, leading to differing levels of participation in sport-related physical
activities that increase complex motor skills and overall health-related physical fitness
(Stodden & Roberton, 2009).
Lacking PMC, motor competence, and health-related physical fitness can lead to
obesity. There is an increasingly widening gap between normal-weight children and
overweight/obese children’s gross motor skills because of the inverse relationship among
overweight/obesity and motor skills in children (D’Hondt et al., 2013). Individuals with a
higher amount of body fat (overweight/obese), struggle more with performing motor skill
tasks and they have a slower progression of gaining their motor skills because of the
excess fat (D’Hondt et al., 2013). Therefore, obesity contributes to children not learning
foundational motor skills, which causes low motor competency, and in turn, leads to an
even more sedentary lifestyle and a lower health-related physical fitness (Gentier et al.,
2013). Children with a lower perceived motor competence will be drawn toward to
negative spiral disengagement in activities, creating a lack of opportunities to develop
adequate motor skills and keeping an ideal BMI (Stodden et al., 2008; D’Hondt et al.,
2013). As children age, those individuals who are overweight/obese are thought to
participate in less activities because they have a lower motor competency, which
contributes to not beginning an active and healthy lifestyle because of their low motor
skill level unless they are forced to do so.
31
The relationships among PMC, motor competence, physical activity, and healthrelated physical fitness are not well understood, particularly in the adolescent age group.
Although research has identified positive relationships among motor competence,
physical activity, and health-related physical fitness in young children (3-5 years old) and
during middle childhood (5-10 years old), research including these variables during late
childhood and adolescence (10-15 years old) is limited (Stodden & Goodway, 2007;
Stodden et al., 2008; Caspersen & Christenson, 1985). Therefore, this study will seek to
extend the body of research investigating the associations among PMC, motor
competence, physical activity, with health-related physical fitness during middle
childhood and the early adolescent time period.
Method
Study Participants
The power analysis ran concluded that 44 participants were needed. Forty-seven
participants, ages 10-15, were recruited from an East Tennessee community and a
Northwest Ohio community for this cross-sectional study. These participants were
recruited via word of mouth, flyers, internet postings, and emails. Adolescents were
excluded if the parent(s)/legal guardian indicated any medical condition that would not
allow them to participate in physical activity. Each participant signed a participant assent
form (Appendices D, F, H) after the investigator read the description of the study from
the parental permission sheet to the participant and his/her parental guardian(s)
(Appendices C, E, G). Parental permission was then also signed for each participant by
32
the parental guardian(s) of the participant (Appendices C, E, G). The university
Institutional Review Board approved the protocol (Appendix L).
Protocol
Participants reported to the University of Tennessee Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation (HPER) building Applied Physiology Laboratory or local gymnasium for
two separate visits. Visit 1 was one hour in duration and Visit 2 was 30 minutes in
duration. There was a seven-day length in between Visit 1 and Visit 2.
Visit 1
After obtaining parental permission and child participant assent, the participant’s
standing height, seated height, and weight were measured. These measurements are used
to determine the length of the legs and the length of the torso. Using these assessments,
maturity offset, a measure of maturity status, was calculated via Mirwald’s equations for
maturity offset that are reliable and valid (Mirwald, Baxter-Jones, Bailey, & Beunen,
2002). This value indicated whether the participant was pre-peak height velocity, at peak
height velocity, or post peak height velocity, creating a categorical variable. Next, the
principal investigator (PI) administered the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT-2, 2013)
Analysis Test for Motor Proficiency, Second Edition, which assesses fine and gross
motor skills. The BOT-2 test is the most widely used motor proficiency test with motor
behavioral research and is appropriate for children and adolescents ages 4-21 years
(BOT-2, 2013). Participants did the complete form of the BOT-2 that took one hour per
33
participant. The BOT-2 test consists of fine motor precision (e.g. cutting out a circle,
connecting dots), fine motor integration (e.g. copying a star, copying a square), manual
dexterity (e.g. transferring pennies, sorting cards, stringing blocks), bilateral coordination
(e.g. tapping foot and finger, jumping jacks), balance (e.g. walking forward on a line,
standing on one leg on a balance beam), running speed and agility (e.g. shuttle run, onelegged side hop), upper-limb coordination (e.g. throwing a ball at a target, catching a
tossed ball), and strength (e.g. standing long jump, sit ups). Six composite scores were
then calculated into a comprehensive score reflecting the overall fine and gross motor
skills. This overall score was then calculated into a motor score percentile based upon the
BOT-2 reference tables (BOT-2, 2013). The experimenters, who did the scoring, were
trained via the Comprehensive Training video provided by BOT-2. This video provides
information from the authors of the BOT-2, test administration, scoring, and reporting of
information. After each investigator watched the video, s/he ran through practice trials on
each other to gain experience with the testing. Reliability testing was randomly
conducted on 10% of the participants. Reliability was done by way of both experimenters
scoring the same participants to ensure that the results are consistent.
Next, the participant completed a PMC assessment (Harter, 1978). The PMC
versions that were used were the “Perceived Competence Scale for Children” (ages 1013) and “Perceived Competence Scale for Adolescents” (ages 14-15). The children
simply answered the “physical” subset of seven questions. The questionnaires consist of
one sample question and five assessment questions reflecting how the children feel they
do when they are participating in physical activity (score of 1-5). Each of the five
34
assessment questions received a score out of five points and an average score of the five
assessment questions was calculated. Children that feel more confident about their motor
skills score higher on this five-point scale and children who feel less confident score
lower.
The participant was then fitted with an accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X+,
Pensacola, FL) to assess their level of MVPA over the next seven days. The
accelerometer was placed above the iliac crest of the right hip using an elastic belt. The
participant and parent(s)/legal guardian(s) were given directions for placement and usage
for the next seven complete days. Instructions for proper placement were also sent home
to the parents/guardians (Appendix K).
Visit 2
During the second visit, approximately seven days after Visit 1, the participants
came back for Visit 2 and returned the accelerometer4. The participant then completed
the FITNESSGRAM Physical Fitness Battery (Cooper Institute, 2013). This test battery
is used to assess health-related fitness, which includes aerobic fitness, muscular strength,
muscular endurance, flexibility, and body composition. The first portion of the
FITNESSGRAM is the aerobic fitness portion that was assessed using the Progressive
Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER), which is a paced, 20-meter shuttle
run. Next, muscular strength and endurance were assessed via curl-ups and pushups to a
set cadence. The Back-Saver Sit and Reach test was used to assess flexibility. Age- and
gender-specific Body Mass Index (BMI) was used as a proxy for body composition. The
35
FITNESSGRAM was scored from 0-5 to produce a health-related physical fitness core.
The participant scored a point for each category (PACER, push-ups, curl ups, sit-andreach flexibility, and BMI) that they fell in a healthy fitness zone category determined by
Cooper Institute and the Center for Disease Control. The scores ranged from 0 to 5; zero
being least physically fit and 5 being most physically fit. Lastly, each participant
completed another administration of the PMC questionnaire used during Visit 1.
Statistical Analyses
Motor competence was calculated via BOT-2 data raw scores. The BOT-2 manual
provides tables to produce four categories (fine manual, manual coordination, body
coordination, and strength and agility) of standard scores and motor percentile categories
(BOT-2, 2013). Next, these scores were used to produce an overall standard score and
overall motor skill percentile score following BOT-2 protocol (BOT-2, 2013). The
overall age- and gender-specific motor skill percentile score determined via BOT-2
manual scoring was used in the statistical analysis. An overall motor skill level from one
to five was determined via BOT-2 manual to examine the distribution of the participant
pool (1: well-below average, 2: below average, 3: average, 4: above average, 5: wellabove average). The PMC questionnaire score was developed from Harter (1978); five
perceived motor competence questions assessed (one being least confident and four being
most confident). A score of 1-4 was created by each of the questions answers. An average
of the five questions was calculated to create an overall PMC score of 1-4 for that session
(Harter, 1978). The PMC score from Visit 1 was used for statistical analyses because
36
there were no statistical differences among Visit 1 and Visit 2 PMC scores for each
individual. Raw accelerometer counts were collected. Participants were excluded if they
did not have at least three days of 10 hours each day of accelerometer wear time. Three
participants were excluded because they did not meet these criteria. The raw
accelerometer data were converted to minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity
(MVPA) using cutpoints determined by Evenson, Catellier, Gill, Ondrak, McMurray et
al. (2008) for children. These cutpoints were; 0-100 counts per minute (CPM) was
sedentary, 101-2295 CPM was light, 2296-4011 CPM was moderate, and 4012- ∞ CPM
was vigorous (Evenson et al., 2008). Total minutes of MVPA were divided by the
number of days collected from for each individual participant. Physical activity was then
expressed as average daily minutes of MVPA. The FITNESSGRAM data collected
created an overall healthy fitness zone (HFZ) score of zero through five (zero being least
healthy and five being most healthy). Participants received one point for every category
that they were within the FITNESSGRAM healthy fitness zone (aerobic fitness
(PACER), curl ups, push-ups, flexibility (sit-and-reach), and BMI). The HFZ categories
of aerobic fitness, curl ups, push-ups, and flexibility were created by the Cooper Institute
FITNESSGRAM. The BMI percentiles were created by the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC).
Descriptive univariate statistics were non-normally distributed and were reported
as median (M) and interquartile range (IQR). Because some of the variables were not
normally distributed (health-related physical fitness and motor competence),
nonparametric correlational analyses (Spearman’s rank-order correlations) were used to
37
examine relationships among motor competence and health-related physical fitness,
motor competence and physical activity, motor competence and PMC, physical activity
and health-related physical fitness, physical activity and PMC, and health-related
physical fitness and PMC. An alpha was set to 0.05 was used to determine statistical
significance. SPSS 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used for all statistical analyses.
Results
Participant Characteristics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the participants.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the participants.
Variable
Caucasian (%)
Male (%)
Age (y) (M, IQR)
BMI (kg·m-2) (M, IQR)
BMI percentile (M, IQR)
Pre Peak Height Velocity (%)
Obesity
Underweight (%)
Healthy Weight (%)
Overweight (%)
Obese (%)
Total (n = 47)
100.0
54.3
11.9, 3.4
19.0, 5.0
61.0, 49.0
87.0
2.2
71.7
19.6
6.5
BOT-2 Assessment (Motor Competence)
Table 2 shows the distribution of the data for the participants for the motor skill
BOT-2 assessment. The motor skill scores were categorized into below average, average,
38
above average, and highly above average via BOT-2 manual given ranges. The majority
of the participants (67.4%) were at average level of motor skills. When examined by he
motor percentile a median of 50.0 (IQR 52.0-95.0) was found.
Table 2: Classification of motor skill (BOT-2).
Variable
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Highly Above Average
Total (n = 47)
17.4%
67.4%
13.0%
2.2%
Perceived Motor Competence (PMC) Assessment
There was no statistically significant difference among Visit 1, Visit 2, and
average PMC scores variables [t(46)= -0.503, p > 0.05]. Therefore, Visit 1 score was
used for further statistical analyses.
Table 3: PMC average score for Visit 1 and Visit 2 (M, IQR).
PMC Test Day
Total (n = 47)
Visit 1
3.0, 0.8
Visit 2
3.0, 0.8
Average of Visit 1 & 2
3.0, 0.8
39
Physical Activity Assessment
The average minutes of MVPA per day was 48.7 ± 23.6 minutes. The proportion
of the total participants that met the recommended physical activity guidelines was
28.3%.
Health-Related Physical Fitness Assessment
Health-Related Physical fitness was assessed via FITNESSGRAM, including five
components of health-related physical fitness (aerobic capacity, curl up, push-up,
flexibility, and BMI). The participants overall had higher levels of health-related physical
fitness than typically seen nationally. The overall health-related physical fitness category
classification distribution is in Table 4.
Table 4: Distribution of the participants for the Health-Related Physical Fitness (1
being least fit and 5 being most fit).
Number of Variables
Total (n = 47)
Achieved in the HFZ
1
13.0%
2
10.9%
3
6.5%
4
37.0%
5
32.6%
Table 5 shows the results of the Spearman’s rank-order correlation analyses for
the total group. There was a significant positive correlation among motor competence
percentile and health-related physical fitness [rs(47) = 0.44, rs2 = 0.19, p < 0.01], PMC
40
and health-related physical fitness [rs(47) = 0.32, rs2 = 0.11, p < 0.05], and PMC and
motor competence percentile [rs(47) = 0.44, rs2 = 0.22, p < 0.05]. There were no
significant associations among average daily MVPA and motor competence [rs(44)= 0.09, p > 0.05], PMC [rs(44)= 0.13, p > 0.05], or health-related physical fitness [rs(44)=
0.07, p > 0.05].
Table 5: Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients among motor, physical
activity, and fitness variables (rs).
Motor Competence
PMC
Avg. Daily
Percentile
MPVA
Healthy-Related
0.44**
0.32*
0.07
Physical Fitness
Motor Competence
0.44*
-0.09
Percentile
PMC
0.13
** Denotes significant correlation (p < 0.01, 2-tailed).
* Denotes significant correlation (p < 0.05, 2-tailed).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine the associations among PMC, motor
competence, physical activity, and health-related physical fitness in middle childhood and
early adolescence (10-15 years old). It was hypothesized that there would be significant,
positive associations among all of the variables (PMC, motor competence, physical
activity, and health-related physical fitness). The sample of participants was slightly
above average in regards to health-related physical fitness, but was in average ranges
comparing to previous research in regards to PMC and motor competence (D’Hondt et
41
al., 2013). While this study does not apply causality, there are a few explanations for why
relationships exist between some of these variables.
There was a significant, positive association between PMC and motor
competence. The PMC scores for this study were in an average range for children ages
10-15 years old, comparing to past research. The higher the PMC, the greater the motor
competency of a child was and vice versa. This is a significant, moderate correlation
indicating that the PMC could possibly have an impact on motor competency. This could
possibly be because children who have a higher PMC are more likely to participate in a
greater variety of physical activities, likewise, children with a lower PMC are less likely
to participate in a variety of physical activities, decreasing the chance of increasing
overall motor skills (Biddle et al., 2005; Davison, Schmalz, & Downs, 2010; Stodden et
al., 2008). This could also be because motor competence possible drives PMC, which
creates the argument of self-efficacy in how a child approaches goals and challenges
(Bandura, 1993). In other words, as a child’s motor competence increases, s/he has more
positive experiences that should promote an increased in perceived motor competence.
Lastly, there could possibly be some unknown variable that is driving this association
between motor competence and PMC. These results imply the importance to
psychologically support a child with positive words of encouragement to help increase
their PMC, which in turn could help improve their motor competence. These results are
consistent with previous research stating that PMC could possibly positively affect an
adolescent’s motor competence (Biddle et al., 2005; Davison, Schmalz, & Downs, 2010;
Stodden et al., 2008; Pontifex et al., 2011; Whitehead & Biddle, 2008). Many children
42
who do not participate in physical and motor activities may lack motivation to participate
because they may believe that they are not capable of performing these activities
successfully (Whitehead & Biddle, 2008).
Biddle et al. states that children and adolescents should be positively encouraged
when participating in physical and motor activities in order to increase their PMC and
psychological factors associated with these physical activities (Biddle et al., 2005).
Enjoyment of an activity is one of the main factors contributing to which individuals
participate in an activity; children who typically are participating in many different
activities and motor skill programs state that they do so because they enjoy the activity
(Whitehead & Biddle, 2008). A higher level of PMC may increase enjoyment of an
activity for children, which can increase the likelihood of learning the fundamental motor
skills because of the participation in more motor skill programs (Pontifex et al., 2011).
One way to increase PMC and promote positive psychological benefits to children is
through social interactions with friends during the motor and physical activities because
friends may increase the comfort and enjoyment level for the child and also decrease the
insecurities (Whitehead & Biddle, 2008). Children also tend to thrive and have an
increased sense of self more in activities that are fun, informal, and unstructured
(Whitehead & Biddle, 2008). Therefore, finding ways to increase a child’s PMC could
lead to a greater willingness to participate in motor skill activities, which could then
increase their motor competence overall.
There was also a moderate, positive correlation between motor competence and
overall health-related physical fitness. Gross motor skills can be reflective of the future
43
health-related physical fitness status of a child (Baghurst & Mwavita 2014). Fundamental
motor skills are theoretically the building blocks for the more complex motor skill
movements. Children need to be able to complete complex motor movements in order to
improve muscular strength and endurance. Complex movements, such as push-ups or
curl-ups, require movements beyond the basic fundamental motor skills. These are more
sport-specific motor skills that highly contribute to the overall health-related physical
fitness of a child (Baghurst & Mwavita, 2014; Stodden & Roberton, 2009; Hands et al.,
2008). This may explain the significant association between motor competence and
health-related physical fitness. This association applies specifically to the push-ups and
curl ups performed in the FITNESSGRAM. If a child/adolescent has the motor skills to
complete these complex movements, then s/he is more likely to be in the healthy fitness
zone for muscular strength and endurance (push-ups and curl ups). Additionally, ballistic
fundamental motor skill movements, such as jumping, require a higher demand on the
neuromuscular system, enhancing control and coordination (Stodden & Roberton, 2009).
This may lead to an increased health-related physical fitness for children. These higher
health-related physical fitness levels also promote the continued development of motor
skills throughout adolescence (Rodrigues, Stodden, & Vítor, 2015).
The mechanics behind running are based upon the fundamental motor skill of
learning to run and balance (Hands et al., 2008). As children develop these skills, they
can improve their cardiovascular health, which then improves their aerobic fitness and
overall health-related physical fitness. Although aerobic fitness is only one component of
health-related physical fitness, it is still an important construct that incorporates the
44
execution of fundamental motor skills (Hands et al., 2008). As children/adolescents
participate in a variety of activities, learning the fundamental motor skills, their flexibility
may increase because they learn the gross motor skill of balancing and being able to
stretch properly. Even though many physical activities can reduce flexibility by reducing
range of movement, children tend to participate in balance activities to increase their
flexibility (Hands et al., 2008). Lastly, youth who are proficient in their motor skills are
more likely to have a favorable BMI. Theoretically, this may be due to the greater
opportunity to participate and be successful in physical activities (Rodrigues et al., 2015).
If an adolescent is not participating in more complex activities that are related to greater
bone and muscle strengthening activities, then the adolescent will not have high motor
competency or a high physical fitness level. The higher the health-related physical fitness
of a child, the more positive of an effect on weight status it has, promoting a more
favorable BMI (Rodrigues et al., 2015).
Older children are more likely to participate in physical activity if they feel
competent to do so (Pontifex et al., 2011). Increasing a children’s motor skills at a young
age may increase their physical activity and health-related physical fitness level because
they may feel more competent and better capable to participate in these activities
(Spessato et al., 2012; Harter, 1978). These children may then maintain a consistent level
of physical activity throughout adolescence, increasing their motor skills as they age,
which may allow them to participate in more complex aerobic and strengthening
activities (Hands et al., 2008; Stodden & Roberton, 2009). Increasing an adolescent’s
capability to perform complex motor skills will increase their overall health-related
45
physical fitness, after fundamental motor skills are learned, and may then contribute to an
increase the adolescent’s overall health-related physical fitness status (Cliff et al., 2011;
Zask et al., 2012; Barnett et al., 2010; Stodden & Roberton, 2009). There are other
possibilities as to why there is a significant, positive association between motor
competence and health-related physical fitness. Health-related could also possibly drive
motor competence. Therefore, the more physical fit a child is, the higher his/her motor
competence will be. There could also be other underlying mechanisms responsible for
this association between motor competence and health-related physical fitness.
Interestingly, there were no significant associations among average daily MVPA
and motor competence, PMC, or health-related physical fitness. The results provided no
support for the notion that older children’s motor skills are associated with their physical
activity level and, therefore, were not consistent with the model hypothesized by Stodden
et al. (2008) regarding a positive relationship between motor competence and physical
activity in this age group. Previous research has found significant positive associations
among motor competence and physical activity in children younger than 10 years of age,
but not necessarily children older than 10 years of age (Stodden et al., 2008, Stodden
2006). If children are not physically active at a young age, then their motor skill level
may not develop or progress appropriately (Seefeldt, 1980; Metcalfe & Clark, 2002).
Adolescents may lack of motor skill development from childhood if they keep a
consistent pattern of physical activity, or show a decline in activity levels. Lack of motor
skill development may also result from insufficient opportunities to learn or practice
motor skills (i.e., in physical education, sports teams, activity classes). Therefore, even if
46
an adolescent (10-15 years old) is physically active, s/he may not have achieved motor
skill proficiency of the motor skills at the younger age, which could provide one
explanation as to why there is a lack of association between physical activity and motor
competency.
Another possible explanation for the lack of association between motor
competence and physical activity is the difference in sport-specific skill that each
physical activity requires, especially in the adolescent age group. For example, children
who were not active when they were young and did not learn proper motor skills, but
participate in cross country running as adolescents, may still not have age-appropriate
motor skills because cross country running does not require many motor skills to
participate. Cross-country running does not require object control skills, and only slightly
requires locomotor skills. Youth need to participate in object control and locomotor skill
activities in order to adequately promote overall motor competence. Object control motor
skills include skills such as throwing, catching, striking, bouncing, or kicking an object.
Locomotor motor skills include skills such as walking, galloping, jumping, hoping, sidesliding, leaping, and skipping. For example, basketball requires high levels of locomotor
skills and object control skills. Therefore, this child playing basketball may have a better
opportunity to learn both the types of motor skills, creating an enhanced overall motor
skill competence.
According to the results of this study, PMC is significantly associated with motor
competence and health-related physical fitness, but is not associated with physical
activity. These associations are moderate among PMC and motor competence and health-
47
related physical fitness. These results may be due to the fact that youth may evaluate their
abilities based off of their physical attributes and successes in sports/activities, rather than
simply the amount of physical activity that they complete. This study does not support
the previous research stating that there is a positive association between physical activity
and health-related physical fitness (Pontifex et al., 2011; Hands et al., 2008). Physical
activity was not significantly associated with the health-related physical fitness likely
because some of the components of health-related physical fitness require complex motor
skills, but the amount of physical activity done on a regular basis may not necessarily
significantly affect it. For example, push-ups require a complex motor skill. Children that
are highly active through running, may not have the motor competence to correctly and
successful do push-ups. Therefore, they are participating in large amounts of physical
activity, but not improving motor skills to increase in the areas that require motor skills;
namely push-ups.
This study concurs with previous findings in the literature that motor skill
development in adolescents, along with PMC, are important when considering overall
physical fitness (Spessato et al., 2012; Harter, 1978; Pontifex 2001; Stodden et al., 2008;
Seefeldt, 1980; Metcalfe & Clark, 2002). It is very important to stress motor skills at a
young age for children to begin to become physically active and to create a healthy
lifestyle. Therefore, positive reinforcement may lead to improved PMC and subsequent
higher health-related fitness.
Overall, there are many strengths to this study. The power analysis ran concluded
that 44 participants were needed and the sample size used (n=47) was larger than the
48
number of participants needed. The sample was proportional among males (54.3%) and
females (45.7%). Validated, objective tools were used for all of the assessments (BOT-2,
GT3X Actigraph accelerometer, FITNESSGRAM). The sample of participants completed
the average amount of MVPA that children typically do nationally. Lastly, the proportion
of children overweight/obese compared to healthy was similar to national averages via
BMI making the information generalizable. One limitation to this study is the
homogenous sample. The sample was all Caucasian participants and it was a convenient
sample, which may cause slight selection bias. This population of participants had
slightly higher health-related physical fitness. Future studies should strive for a diverse
sample of adolescents, including all races, genders, and classifications of health status
represented by BMI.
The main objective was to assess the associations among PMC, motor
competence, physical activity, and health-related physical fitness in youth ages 10-15
years old. There were significant associations among health-related physical fitness and
motor competence, motor competence and PMC, and PMC and health-related fitness.
This study did not find any significant associations among physical activity and any of
the other variables tested. Therefore, this study only partially supports the model
proposed by Stodden et al. (2008) concerning the relationships that exist among PMC,
motor competence, and health-related physical fitness. Future studies should continue to
use the BOT-2, FITNESSGRAM, and objective monitoring of physical activity. They
should also strive for a diverse sample of adolescents, including all races, genders, and
classifications of health status represented by BMI.
49
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main purpose of this study was to assess the associations among perceived
motor competence, motor competence, physical activity, and health-related physical
fitness during middle childhood and early adolescence (10-15 years old). This study
found significant associations among motor competence and health-related physical
fitness, motor competence and perceived motor competence (PMC), and PMC and
health-related physical fitness. It is important for children to learn fundamental motor
skills to be able to participate in more complex motor skills related to physical fitness and
for children to be encouraged in a positive manner while participating in physical activity
to possibly increase their PMC. Future studies should continue to use the BOT-2,
FITNESSGRAM, and objective monitoring of physical activity. They should also strive
for a diverse sample of adolescents, including all races, genders, and classifications of
health status represented by BMI.
50
REFERENCES
51
1. Baghurst, T. M., & Mwavita M. (2014). Preschool motor development predicting
high school health-related physical fitness: a prospective study. Perceptual &
Motor Skills: Physical Development & Measurement, 119, 279-291.
2. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
3. Barnett, L. M., Beurden, E. V., Morgan, P. J., Brooks, L. O., Beard, J. R. (2010).
Gender differences in motor skill proficiency from childhood to adolescence.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(2), 162-170.
4. Barnett, L. M., Beurden, E. V., Morgan, P. J., Brooks, L. O., Zask, A., Beard, J.
R. (2009). Six-year follow-up of students who participated in a school-based
physical activity intervention: a longitudinal cohort study. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6(48), 1-8.
5. Biddle, S. J., Whitehead, S. H., Nevill, M. E. (2005). Correlates of participation in
physical activity for adolescent girls: a systematic review of recent literature.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2, 423-434.
6. Bruininks, R. H., & Bruininks, B. D. (2013). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor
Proficiency, Second Edition.
7. Carrel, A. L., Bower, J., White, D., Moberg, D. P., Weaver, B., Hisgen, J., . . .
Allen, D. B. (2012). Standardized childhood fitness percentiles derived from
school-based testing. Journal of Pediatrics, 161(1), 120-124.
8. Caspersen, C. J., & Christenson, G. M. (1985). Physical activity, exercise, and
physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public
Health Reports, 126-31.
9. Chaddock, L., Erickson, K. I., Prakash, R. S., Voss, M. W., VanPatter, M.,
Pontifex, M. B., . . . Kramer, A. F. (2012). A functional MRI investigation of the
association between childhood aerobic fitness and neurocognitive control.
Biological Psychology, 89(1), 260-8.
10. Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Morgan, P. J., Steele, J. R., Jones, R. A., Colyvas, K.,
Baur, L. A. (2011). Movement skills and physical activity in obese children:
randomized controlled trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(1), 90100.
11. Cooper Institute. (2013). FITNESSGRAM/ACTIVITYGRAM Test
Administration Manual. Dallas, Texas.
12. Croce, R. V., Horvat, M., McCarthy, E. (2011). Reliability and concurrent
validity of the movement assessment battery for children. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 93, 275-280.
13. Davison, K., Schmalz, D., Downs, D. (2010). Hop, skip...No! Explaining
adolescent girls’ disinclination for physical activity. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 39, 290-302.
14. D’Hondt, E., Deforche, B., Gentier, I., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Vaeyens, R.,
Philippaerts, R., Lenoir, M. (2013). A longitudinal analysis of gross motor
coordination in overweight and obese children versus normal-weight peers.
International Journal of Obesity, 37, 61-67.
15. Evenson, K. R., Catellier, D. J., Gill, K., Ondrak, K. S., McMurray, R. G. (2008).
52
Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 26(14), 1557-1565.
16. Faught, B. E., Hay, J. A., Cairney, J., Flouris, A. (2005). Increased risk for
coronary vascular disease in children with developmental disorder. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 37, 376-380.
17. Freedson, P. S., Cureton, K. J., Health, G. W. (2000). Status of Field-Based
Testing in Children and Youth. Preventative Medicine, 31, S77-S85.
18. Gentier, I., D’Hondt, E., Shultz, S., Deforche, B., Augustijn, M., Hoorne, S., . . .
Lenoir, M. (2013). Fine and gross motor skills differ between healthy-weight and
obese children. Reserach in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 4043-4051.
19. Haga M. (2009). Physical fitness in children with high motor competence is
different from that in children with low motor competence. Physical Therapy,
89(10), 1089-97.
20. Hands, B., Larkin, D., Parker, H., Straker, L., Perry, M. (2009). The relationship
among physical activity, motor competence and health-related fitness in 14-yearold adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19(5),
655-63.
21. Hänggi, J. M., Phillips, L. R., Rowlands, A. V. (2013). Validation of the GT3X
Actigraph in children in comparison with the GT1M Actigraph. Journal of
Science & Medicine in Sport, 16, 40-44.
22. Hardy, L. L., Reinten-Reynolds, T., Espinel, P., Zask, A., Okely, A. D. (2012).
Prevalence and correlates of low fundamental movement skill competency in
children. Pediatrics, 130, e390-e398.
23. Harter S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental
model. Human Development, 21, 34-64.
24. Holfelder, B., & Schott, N. (2014). Relationship of fundamental movement skills
and physical activity and children and adolescents: A systematic review.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 382-391.
25. Horvat, M., & McCarthy, E. (2001). Reliability and concurrent validity of the
movement assessment battery for children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 275280.
26. Khodaverdi, Z., Bahram, A., Khalaji, H., Kazemnejad, A. (2013). Motor skill
competence and perceived motor competence: Which best predicts physical
activity among girls? Iranian J Publ Helath, 42(10), 1145-1150.
27. Kohl, H. W., (U.S.), I. O., Cook, H. D., III, H. W., & Cook, H. D. (2013).
Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to
School. National Academies Press.
28. Krombholz, H. (2013). Motor and cognitive performance of overweight preschool
children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116(1), 40-57.
29. Labbrozzi, D., Bortoli, L., Bertollo, M., Bucci, I., Doria, C., Robazza, C. (2012).
Age-related differences in actual and perceived levels of physical activity in
adolescent girls. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114(3), 723-734.
53
30. Laurson, K. R., Saint-Maurice, P. F., Karsai, I., Csányi. (2015). Cross-Validation
of FITNESSGRAM Health-Related Fitness Standards in Hungarian Youth.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, S13-S20.
31. Leger, L. A., Mercier, D., Gadoury, C., Lambert, J. (1988). The multistage 20
metre shuttle run test for aerobic fitness. J Sports Sci, 6(2), 93‐101.
32. Liu, N. Y., Plowman, S. A., Looney, M. A. (1992). The reliability and validity of
the 20‐meter shuttle test in American students 12 to 15 years old. Res Q Exerc
Sport, 63(4), 360-5.
33. Metcalfe, J., & Clark, J. (2002). The mountain of motor development: a metaphor.
Motor Development: Research and Reviews, 2, 163-190.
34. Meyer, G., Faigenbaum, A., Best, T. M. (2015). Sixty minutes of what? A
developing brain perspective for activating children with an integrative exercise
approach. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 0, 1-9.
35. Mirwald, R. L., Baxter-Jones, A. D., Bailey, D. A., Beunen, G. P. (2002). An
assessment of maturity from anthropometric measurements. MSSE, 34(4), 689-94.
36. Miyahara, M., & Clarkson, J. (2005). Concurrent validity of selected movement
skill items in the new Zealand ministry of education’s health and physical
education assessment. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental
Psychology, 5, 32-39.
37. Morano, M., Colella, D., Rutigliano, I., Flore, P., Pettoello-Mantovani, M.,
Campanozzi, A. (2012). Changes in actual and perceived physical abilities in
clinically obese children: a 9-month multi-component intervention study. PLOS
One, 7(12), 1-8.
38. Nader, P. R., Bradley, R. H., Houts, R. M., McRitchie, S. L., O’Brien, M. (2008).
Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. JAMA, 300(3),
295-305.
39. Pontifex, M. B., Johnson, C. R., Chaddock, L., Voss, M. W., Cohen, N. J.,
Kramer, A. F., Hillman, C. H. (2011). Cardiorespiratory Fitness and the Flexible
Modulation of Cognitive Control in Preadolescent Children. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 23(6), 1332-45.
40. Rodrigues, L. P., Stodden, D. F., Lopes, V. P. (2016). Developmental pathways of
change in fitness and motor competence are related to overweight and obesity
status at the end of primary school. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,
19(1), 87-92.
41. Salmon, J., Ball, K., Hume, C., Booth, M., Crawford, D. (2008). Outcomes of a
group-randomized trial to prevent excess weight gain, reduce screen behaviors
and promote physical activity in 10-year-old children: Switch-play. International
Journal of Obesity, 32, 601-612.
42. Scott, S. N., Thompson, D. L., Coe, D. P. (2013). The ability of the PACER to
elicit peak exercise response in the youth. MSSE, 45(6), 1139-1143.
43. Seefeldt, V. (1980). Developmental motor patterns: Implications for elementary
school physical education. Human Kinetics, 314-323.
54
44. Spessato, B. C., Gabbard, C., Robinson, L., Valentini, N. C. (2012). Body mass
index, perceived and actual physical competence: the relationship among young
children. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 39(6), 845-850.
45. Stodden, D. F., & Goodway, J. D. (2007). The Dynamic Association Between
Motor Skill Development and Physical Activity. Journal of Physical Education,
78(8), 33-49.
46. Stodden, D. F, Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E., Garcia, C.,
Garcia, L. E. (2008). A Developmental Perspective on the Role of Motor Skill
Competence in Physical Activity: An Emergent Relationship. National
Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education, 60,
290-306.
47. Stodden, D. F., & Roberton, M. A. (2009). The Association between Motor Skill
Competence and Physical Fitness in Young Adults. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 80(2), 223-9.
48. Stodden, D. F., True, L. K., Langendorfer, S. J., Gao, Z. (2012). Associations
selected motor skills and health-related fitness: indirect evidence for Seefeldt’s
proficiency barrier in young adults? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
84(3), 397-403.
49. Strong, W. B., Maline, R. M., Blimkie, C. J., Daniels, S. R., Dishman, R. K.,
Gutin, B., . . . Trudeau, F. (2005). Evidence based physical activity for school-age
youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 146(6), 732-737.
50. Stroth, S., Hille, K., Spitzer, M., Reinhardt, R. (2009). Aerobic endurance
exercise benefits memory and affect in young adults. Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 19(2), 223-43.
51. Troiano, R. P., Berrigan, D., Dodd, K. W., Mâsse, L. C., Tilert, T., McDowell, M.
(2008). Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. MSSE,
40(1), 181-188.
52. Trost, S. G., Loprinzi, P. D., Moore, R., Pfeiffer, K. A. (2011). Comparison of
accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports
Exerc, 43(7), 1360-8.
53. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008) Physical Activity
Guidelines for Physical Activity.
54. Van Mechelen, W., Hlobil, H., Kemper, H. (1986). Validation of two running
tests as estimates of maximal aerobic power in children. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol, 55(5), 503‐06.
55. Vlahov, E., Baghurst, T. M., Mwavita, M. (2014). Preschool motor development
predicting high school health-related physical fitness: a prospective study.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(1), 279-91.
56. Voss, C., & Sandercock, G. (2009). Does the twenty meter shuttle‐run test elicit
maximal effort in 11‐ to 16‐year‐olds? Pediatr Exerc Sci, 21(1), 55‐62.
57. Welk, G. F., De Saint-Maurice Maduro, P. F., Laurson, K. R., Brown, D. D.
(2011a). Field evaluation of the new FITNESSGRAM criterion-referenced
standards. Am J Prev Med, 41(4S2), S131-S142.
55
58. Welk, G. J., Going, S. B., Morrow, J. R., Meredith, M. D. (2011b). Development
of new criterion-referenced fitness standards in the FITNESSGRAM program,
rationale and conceptual overview. Am J Prev Med, 41(4S2), S63-S67.
59. Whitehead, S., & Biddle, S. (2008). Adolescent girls’ perceptions of physical
activity: a focus group study. European Physical Education Review, 14(2), 243262.
60. Williams, H. G., Pfeiffer, K. A., O’Neill, J. R., Dowda, M., McIver, K. L., Brown,
W. H., Pate, R. R. (2008). Motor skill performance and physical activity in
preschool children. Obesity, 16(6), 1421-1426.
61. Wrotniak, B., Epstein, L. H., Dorn, J. M., Jones, K. E., Kondilis, V. A. (2006).
The relationship between motor proficiency and physical activity in children.
Pediatrics, 118(6), 1758-1765.
62. Zask, A., Rose, L., Brooks, L. O., Molyneux, M., Hughes, D., Adams, J., Salmon,
J. (2012). Three-year follow-up of an early childhood intervention: is movement
skill sustained? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 9, 127.
56
APPENDICES
57
APPENDIX A: Recruitment Flyer The University of Tennessee-Knoxville, TN
58
!
Would!you!like!your!child!to!be!involved!in!a!research!
study???!
The!University!of!Tennessee!
Applied'Physiology'Laboratory'
'
We'are'seeking'10'8'15'year'old'children'for'a'research'study'to'
determine'how'children’s'ability'to'complete'motor'skills'(jumping,'
running,'etc.)'is'related'to'their'physical'activity'and'physical'fitness'
levels.'''
This'study'involves'two,'one8hour'sessions'at'the'Health,'Physical'
Education,'and'Recreation'Building'(HPER)'on'the'University'of'
Tennessee'campus.''The'children'will'participate'in'assessments'of'
motor'skills'and'fitness,'complete'a'questionnaire,'and'wear'an'activity'
monitor'for'seven'days.''This'research'will'contribute'to'the'field'of'
motor'development'in'adolescents.'
'
For'more'information,'please'contact'Emily'Post'at''
Phone:'(865)'974'8'6040'
Email:'[email protected]!!
Your!participation!would!be!greatly!appreciated!!
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'–'6040'
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
Emily'Post'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'–'6040'
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
Emily'Post'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'–'6040'
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
Emily'Post'
'
'
59
APPENDIX B: Recruitment Flyer for Saint Henry Middle School Saint Henry, OH
60
Would&you&like&your&child&to&be&involved&in&a&
research&study?&
The&University&of&Tennessee&
Applied'Physiology'Laboratory'
'
We'are'seeking'10'8'15'year'old'children'for'a'research'study'to'
determine'how'children’s'ability'to'complete'motor'skills'(jumping,'
running,'etc.)'is'related'to'their'physical'activity'and'physical'fitness'
levels.'''
This'study'involves'two,'one8hour'sessions'at'the'Saint'Henry'Middle'
School'in'Saint'Henry,'Ohio.''The'children'will'participate'in'
assessments'of'motor'skills'and'fitness,'complete'a'questionnaire,'and'
wear'an'activity'monitor'for'seven'days.''This'research'will'contribute'
to'the'field'of'motor'development'in'adolescents.'
'
For'more'information,'please'contact'Emily&Post'at''
Phone:'(865)'974'8'6040'
Email:'[email protected]&&
Your&participation&would&be&greatly&appreciated!&
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'–'6040'
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
Emily'Post'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'–'6040'
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
Emily'Post'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'–'6040'
'
Emily'Post'
[email protected]'
(865)'974'8'6040''
Emily'Post'
'
'
61
APPENDIX C: Informed Parental Consent for The University of Tennessee-Knoxville,
TN
62
Parental Permission
Permission to Take Part in a Research Study
Title: The Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15
years old.
Principal Investigators: Emily Post, B.S.
Dawn P. Coe, Ph.D.
Your permission is required for your child to take part in a research study. This consent form explains the
purpose and requirements, of the study. Please read this form carefully. You will be given a chance to ask
questions. If you decide to permit your child to be in the study, you will be given a copy of this form. If
you choose for your child not to take part in the study, it will not affect your child’s rights to care or
services. You are also free to remove your child from this study at any time without penalty.
Why is this study being done?
The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between physical activity and motor
competence in adolescents (10-15 years old). A secondary objective is to determine the impact that the
mediating factors (perceived motor competence, physical fitness, and obesity) have on the relationship
between physical activity and motor competence. Previous research has shown associations among these
variables in young children; however, little research has been conducted with adolescents.
How long will the study last?
Your child’s participation will include two visits lasting approximately one hour each. The study will take
place at the Applied Physiology Lab in the Health, Physical Education, and Recreation building (1914
Andy Holt Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37996) on the University of Tennessee campus. After the first visit,
your child will also be asked to wear a physical activity monitor all day for seven consecutive days. Your
child will then return the accelerometer during the second visit.
How many people will be in the study?
About 100 children enrolled in the Knoxville community will be participating in this study.
What will my child do during the study?
During the study, your child will attend two visits. Each visit will be approximately an hour in length.
During the first visit, your child’s height and weight will be measured and your child will be fitted with a
physical activity monitor. The physical activity monitor is a small box, the size of a small pager that is
worn on a belt around the waist. The monitor will be worn daily for seven consecutive days (Monday
through the following Monday). Your child will then participate in a Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT)
Analysis Test for Motor Proficiency. This test consists of motor precision, fine motor integration, manual
dexterity, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb coordination, and
strength. Some of these activities include cutting out a circle, copying a square, sorting cards, one-legged
side hop, catching a tossed ball, sit ups, etc. You child will then complete a seven question perceived
motor competence questionnaire. This is a questionnaire to determine how your child feels when they are
performing certain physical activities. On the second visit your child will participate in the FitnessGram
Physical Battery. This test includes aerobic fitness (PACER), muscular strength, muscular endurance,
flexibility, and body composition. Next, your child will complete the seven question perceived motor
competence assessment again.
Parent/Guardian Initials _____
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
63
Risks associated with the study are minimal and considered to be equivalent to the risks that the children
normally face when they are active during their physical education class. There are potential risks
associated with PACER test and some of the BOT tests that may include lightheadedness, chest
discomfort, leg cramps, falling, and muscle sprain/strain. These risks are similar to those typically
experienced during aerobic fitness testing during physical education class.
All of these investigators are cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certified in case of an emergency.
There will also be water and fruit present to hydrate your child after the PACER test. The
children/subjects will be told to let the investigators know if they feel anything abnormal (i.e. chest pain,
nausea, joint paint, etc.).
Additionally, there is the possibility that a child may experience mild skin irritation from the belt that
contains the activity monitor rubbing on the skin. If so, the belt will be adjusted or removed.
Are there benefits to my child for taking part in the study?
There are no direct benefits to your child for participating in this study. Information from this study will
be gathered to determine the physical fitness level, physical activity level, and motor competence level in
youth. School physical educators will potentially benefit from this information for their physical
education courses.
Will I receive the results of my child’s assessments?
We will share the results of your child’s assessment with you. If your child’s values fall below the normal
range, we will provide you with the results as well as recommendations for future evaluation if necessary.
What happens if my child gets hurt?
In the event that your child becomes injured as a result of participating in this study, immediate treatment
will be available (First Aid and/or CPR). However, you must assume responsibility for all medically
necessary treatment. It is important that you tell the researcher, Emily Post, B.S., if you feel that your
child has been injured in this study. You can tell the researcher in person or call her at 864-974-6040.
Who do I call if I have questions about the study?
Questions about the study not addressed in this form should be directed to Emily Post, B.S.: 865-9746040 (Phone #), [email protected] (E-mail) and if needed, a meeting can be set up. Questions about
your child’s rights as a research participant should be directed to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Office of Research Compliance Officer at 865-974-7697.
What will it cost me to permit my child to be in the study?
There will be no cost to you for your child to be in the study.
Will my child be paid for participating?
Your child will not be paid to participate.
Is the Investigator being paid to do this study?
No, the investigator is not being paid to enroll people in this study.
Parent/Guardian Initials _____
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
64
Will anyone know my child is in the study and how is my child’s identity being protected?
A record of your child’s participation in the study will be kept private and all data will be kept in a
confidential file in a locked cabinet in a locked University of Tennessee faculty office for 3 years
following completion of the study. After that, your child’s data will be destroyed. Only the investigators
will have access to your child’s data. Study results will be prepared for presentation at professional
meetings and publication in journals. However, none of your child’s personal information will be
revealed. There will be ID numbers created and a key to the ID numbers for your child. The key will be
kept separately from the ID numbers. The ID number and key with your child’s information on it will be
destroyed after the study is finished. Therefore, your child will not be identified in any reports.
What if your child does not want to be in the study?
Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to permit your child to
participate in this study will not affect your or your child’s current or future relations with the researchers
or the University of Tennessee. If you decide to allow your child to participate, you are free to withdraw
your child from the study at any time without affecting those relationships. If your child does not wish to
participate or becomes upset on one of the testing days, we will attempt to console and comfort your
child. We will then try to collect their data on an additional day. If you child does not wish to participate
or becomes upset again on the additional day, your child will be removed from the study. If your child
decides that s/he no longer wants to participate in the study, we will remove your child from the study.
PERMISSION OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN:
I have read or have had read to me the description of the research study. The investigator or her
representative has explained the study to me and has answered all of the questions I have at this time. I
have been told of the potential risks, discomforts and side effects as well as the possible benefits (if any)
of the study. I freely permit my child to take part in this study.
__________________________ _________________________ __________
Printed Name of Parent/Guardian Signature of Parent/Guardian Date & Time
__________________________ ________________________ __________
Printed name of Investigator Signature of Investigator Date
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
65
APPENDIX D: Participant Assent Form for The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
66
Assent Form
Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15 years old.
The assent discussion was initiated on ______________(date) at __________ (time).
The information was presented in age-appropriate terms.
The minor: _______________________________________________(Subject’s Name)
Agreed to take part in the study on _________________(date) at _______________ (time).
An assent discussion was not initiated with the minor for the following reason(s):
Minor is under 10 years of age
Minor is physically incapacitated
Minor is cognitively or emotionally unable to participate in an assent discussion
Minor refused to take part in the discussion
Other_________________________________________________________
RESEARCHER/DESIGNEE STATEMENT: I hereby certify that I have discussed the research
project with the research participant and/or his/her parent(s) or legal guardian(s). I have
explained all the information contained in the permission document, including any risks that may
be reasonably expected to occur. I further certify that the research participant was encouraged
to ask questions and that all questions were answered.
______________________________
Researcher/Designee Printed Name
______________________________
Researcher/Designee Signature
________________ _______________
Date
Time (AM/PM)
______________________________
Minor Subject Printed Name
________________________________
Minor Subject Signature (10-15 years)
________________ _______________
Date
Time (AM/PM)
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
67
APPENDIX E: Informed Parental Consent for Episcopal School of Knoxville, TN
68
Parental Permission
Permission to Take Part in a Research Study
Title: The Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15
years old.
Principal Investigators: Emily Post, B.S.
Dawn P. Coe, Ph.D.
Your permission is required for your child to take part in a research study. This consent form explains the
purpose and requirements, of the study. Please read this form carefully. You will be given a chance to ask
questions. If you decide to permit your child to be in the study, you will be given a copy of this form. If
you choose for your child not to take part in the study, it will not affect your child’s rights to care or
services. You are also free to remove your child from this study at any time without penalty.
Why is this study being done?
The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between physical activity and motor
competence in adolescents (10-15 years old). A secondary objective is to determine the impact that the
mediating factors (perceived motor competence, physical fitness, and obesity) have on the relationship
between physical activity and motor competence. Previous research has shown associations among these
variables in young children; however, little research has been conducted with adolescents.
How long will the study last?
Your child’s participation will include two visits lasting approximately one hour each. The study will take
place at Emerald Youth Soccer (Emerald Youth Sports, 1718 North Central Street
Knoxville, Tennessee). After the first visit, your child will also be asked to wear a physical
activity monitor all day for seven consecutive days. Your child will then return the accelerometer
during the second visit.
How many people will be in the study?
About 100 children enrolled in the Knoxville community will be participating in this study.
What will my child do during the study?
During the study, your child will attend two visits. Each visit will be approximately an hour in length.
During the first visit, your child’s height and weight will be measured and your child will be fitted with a
physical activity monitor. The physical activity monitor is a small box, the size of a small pager that is
worn on a belt around the waist. The monitor will be worn daily for seven consecutive days (Monday
through the following Monday). Your child will then participate in a Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT)
Analysis Test for Motor Proficiency. This test consists of motor precision, fine motor integration, manual
dexterity, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb coordination, and
strength. Some of these activities include cutting out a circle, copying a square, sorting cards, one-legged
side hop, catching a tossed ball, sit ups, etc. You child will then complete a seven question perceived
motor competence questionnaire. This is a questionnaire to determine how your child feels when they are
performing certain physical activities. On the second visit your child will participate in the FitnessGram
Physical Battery. This test includes aerobic fitness (PACER), muscular strength, muscular endurance,
and flexibility. Next, your child will complete the seven question perceived motor competence
assessment again.
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 10/19/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
69
Parent/Guardian Initials _____
Risks associated with the study are minimal and considered to be equivalent to the risks that the children
normally face when they are active during their physical education class. There are potential risks
associated with PACER test and some of the BOT tests that may include lightheadedness, chest
discomfort, leg cramps, falling, and muscle sprain/strain. These risks are similar to those typically
experienced during aerobic fitness testing during physical education class.
All of these investigators are cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certified in case of an emergency.
There will also be water and fruit present to hydrate your child after the PACER test. The
children/subjects will be told to let the investigators know if they feel anything abnormal (i.e. chest pain,
nausea, joint paint, etc.).
Additionally, there is the possibility that a child may experience mild skin irritation from the belt that
contains the activity monitor rubbing on the skin. If so, the belt will be adjusted or removed.
Are there benefits to my child for taking part in the study?
There are no direct benefits to your child for participating in this study. Information from this study will
be gathered to determine the physical fitness level, physical activity level, and motor competence level in
youth. School physical educators will potentially benefit from this information for their physical
education courses.
Will I receive the results of my child’s assessments?
We will share the results of your child’s assessment with you. If your child’s values fall below the normal
range, we will provide you with the results as well as recommendations for future evaluation if necessary.
What happens if my child gets hurt?
In the event that your child becomes injured as a result of participating in this study, immediate treatment
will be available (First Aid and/or CPR). However, you must assume responsibility for all medically
necessary treatment. It is important that you tell the researcher, Emily Post, B.S., if you feel that your
child has been injured in this study. You can tell the researcher in person or call her at 864-974-6040.
Who do I call if I have questions about the study?
Questions about the study not addressed in this form should be directed to Emily Post, B.S.: 865-9746040 (Phone #), [email protected] (E-mail) and if needed, a meeting can be set up. Questions about
your child’s rights as a research participant should be directed to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Office of Research Compliance Officer at 865-974-7697.
What will it cost me to permit my child to be in the study?
There will be no cost to you for your child to be in the study.
Will my child be paid for participating?
Your child will not be paid to participate.
Is the Investigator being paid to do this study?
No, the investigator is not being paid to enroll people in this study.
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 10/19/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
70
Parent/Guardian Initials _____
Will anyone know my child is in the study and how is my child’s identity being protected?
A record of your child’s participation in the study will be kept private and all data will be kept in a
confidential file in a locked cabinet in a locked University of Tennessee faculty office for 3 years
following completion of the study. After that, your child’s data will be destroyed. Only the investigators
will have access to your child’s data. Study results will be prepared for presentation at professional
meetings and publication in journals. However, none of your child’s personal information will be
revealed. There will be ID numbers created and a key to the ID numbers for your child. The key will be
kept separately from the ID numbers. The ID number and key with your child’s information on it will be
destroyed after the study is finished. Therefore, your child will not be identified in any reports.
What if your child does not want to be in the study?
Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to permit your child to
participate in this study will not affect your or your child’s current or future relations with the researchers
or the University of Tennessee. If you decide to allow your child to participate, you are free to withdraw
your child from the study at any time without affecting those relationships. If your child does not wish to
participate or becomes upset on one of the testing days, we will attempt to console and comfort your
child. We will then try to collect their data on an additional day. If you child does not wish to participate
or becomes upset again on the additional day, your child will be removed from the study. If your child
decides that s/he no longer wants to participate in the study, we will remove your child from the study.
PERMISSION OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN:
I have read or have had read to me the description of the research study. The investigator or her
representative has explained the study to me and has answered all of the questions I have at this time. I
have been told of the potential risks, discomforts and side effects as well as the possible benefits (if any)
of the study. I freely permit my child to take part in this study.
__________________________
Printed Name of Parent/Guardian
_________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian
__________________________
Printed name of Investigator
________________________
Signature of Investigator
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 10/19/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
__________
Date & Time
__________
Date & Time
71
APPENDIX F: Participant Assent Form for Episcopal School of Knoxville, TN
72
Assent Form
Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15 years old.
The assent discussion was initiated on ______________(date) at __________ (time).
The information was presented in age-appropriate terms.
The minor: _______________________________________________(Subject’s Name)
Agreed to take part in the study on _________________(date) at _______________ (time).
An assent discussion was not initiated with the minor for the following reason(s):
Minor is under 10 years of age
Minor is physically incapacitated
Minor is cognitively or emotionally unable to participate in an assent discussion
Minor refused to take part in the discussion
Other_________________________________________________________
RESEARCHER/DESIGNEE STATEMENT: I hereby certify that I have discussed the research
project with the research participant and/or his/her parent(s) or legal guardian(s). I have
explained all the information contained in the permission document, including any risks that may
be reasonably expected to occur. I further certify that the research participant was encouraged
to ask questions and that all questions were answered.
______________________________
Researcher/Designee Printed Name
______________________________
Researcher/Designee Signature
________________ _______________
Date
Time (AM/PM)
______________________________
Minor Subject Printed Name
________________________________
Minor Subject Signature (10-15 years)
________________ _______________
Date
Time (AM/PM)
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
73
APPENDIX G: Informed Parental Consent for Saint Henry Middle School Saint Henry,
OH
74
Parental Permission
Permission to Take Part in a Research Study
Title: The Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15
years old.
Principal Investigators: Emily Post, B.S.
Dawn P. Coe, Ph.D.
Your permission is required for your child to take part in a research study. This consent form explains the
purpose and requirements, of the study. Please read this form carefully. You will be given a chance to ask
questions. If you decide to permit your child to be in the study, you will be given a copy of this form. If
you choose for your child not to take part in the study, it will not affect your child’s rights to care or
services. You are also free to remove your child from this study at any time without penalty.
Why is this study being done?
The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between physical activity and motor
competence in adolescents (10-15 years old). A secondary objective is to determine the impact that the
mediating factors (perceived motor competence, physical fitness, and obesity) have on the relationship
between physical activity and motor competence. Previous research has shown associations among these
variables in young children; however, little research has been conducted with adolescents.
How long will the study last?
Your child’s participation will include two visits lasting approximately one hour each. The study
will take place at Saint Henry Middle School (381 East Columbus Street Saint Henry, Ohio
45883). After the first visit, your child will also be asked to wear a physical activity monitor all
day for seven consecutive days. Your child will then return the accelerometer during the second
visit.
How many people will be in the study?
About 100 children enrolled in the Knoxville, Tennessee and Saint Henry, Ohio community will be
participating in this study.
What will my child do during the study?
During the study, your child will attend two visits. Each visit will be approximately an hour in length.
During the first visit, your child’s height and weight will be measured and your child will be fitted with a
physical activity monitor. The physical activity monitor is a small box, the size of a small pager that is
worn on a belt around the waist. The monitor will be worn daily for seven consecutive days (Monday
through the following Monday). Your child will then participate in a Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT)
Analysis Test for Motor Proficiency. This test consists of motor precision, fine motor integration, manual
dexterity, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb coordination, and
strength. Some of these activities include cutting out a circle, copying a square, sorting cards, one-legged
side hop, catching a tossed ball, sit ups, etc. You child will then complete a seven question perceived
motor competence questionnaire. This is a questionnaire to determine how your child feels when they are
performing certain physical activities. On the second visit your child will participate in the FitnessGram
Physical Battery. This test includes aerobic fitness (PACER), muscular strength, muscular endurance,
and flexibility. Next, your child will complete the seven question perceived motor competence
assessment again.
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 12/18/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
75
Parent/Guardian Initials _____
Risks associated with the study are minimal and considered to be equivalent to the risks that the children
normally face when they are active during their physical education class. There are potential risks
associated with PACER test and some of the BOT tests that may include lightheadedness, chest
discomfort, leg cramps, falling, and muscle sprain/strain. These risks are similar to those typically
experienced during aerobic fitness testing during physical education class.
All of these investigators are cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certified in case of an emergency.
There will also be water and fruit present to hydrate your child after the PACER test. The
children/subjects will be told to let the investigators know if they feel anything abnormal (i.e. chest pain,
nausea, joint paint, etc.).
Additionally, there is the possibility that a child may experience mild skin irritation from the belt that
contains the activity monitor rubbing on the skin. If so, the belt will be adjusted or removed.
Are there benefits to my child for taking part in the study?
There are no direct benefits to your child for participating in this study. Information from this study will
be gathered to determine the physical fitness level, physical activity level, and motor competence level in
youth. School physical educators will potentially benefit from this information for their physical
education courses.
Will I receive the results of my child’s assessments?
We will share the results of your child’s assessment with you. If your child’s values fall below the normal
range, we will provide you with the results as well as recommendations for future evaluation if necessary.
What happens if my child gets hurt?
In the event that your child becomes injured as a result of participating in this study, immediate treatment
will be available (First Aid and/or CPR). However, you must assume responsibility for all medically
necessary treatment. It is important that you tell the researcher, Emily Post, B.S., if you feel that your
child has been injured in this study. You can tell the researcher in person or call her at 864-974-6040.
Who do I call if I have questions about the study?
Questions about the study not addressed in this form should be directed to Emily Post, B.S.: 865-9746040 (Phone #), [email protected] (E-mail) and if needed, a meeting can be set up. Questions about
your child’s rights as a research participant should be directed to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Office of Research Compliance Officer at 865-974-7697.
What will it cost me to permit my child to be in the study?
There will be no cost to you for your child to be in the study.
Will my child be paid for participating?
Your child will not be paid to participate.
Is the Investigator being paid to do this study?
No, the investigator is not being paid to enroll people in this study.
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 12/18/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
76
Parent/Guardian Initials _____
Will anyone know my child is in the study and how is my child’s identity being protected?
A record of your child’s participation in the study will be kept private and all data will be kept in a
confidential file in a locked cabinet in a locked University of Tennessee faculty office for 3 years
following completion of the study. After that, your child’s data will be destroyed. Only the investigators
will have access to your child’s data. Study results will be prepared for presentation at professional
meetings and publication in journals. However, none of your child’s personal information will be
revealed. There will be ID numbers created and a key to the ID numbers for your child. The key will be
kept separately from the ID numbers. The ID number and key with your child’s information on it will be
destroyed after the study is finished. Therefore, your child will not be identified in any reports.
What if your child does not want to be in the study?
Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to permit your child to
participate in this study will not affect your or your child’s current or future relations with the researchers
or the University of Tennessee. If you decide to allow your child to participate, you are free to withdraw
your child from the study at any time without affecting those relationships. If your child does not wish to
participate or becomes upset on one of the testing days, we will attempt to console and comfort your
child. We will then try to collect their data on an additional day. If you child does not wish to participate
or becomes upset again on the additional day, your child will be removed from the study. If your child
decides that s/he no longer wants to participate in the study, we will remove your child from the study.
PERMISSION OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN:
I have read or have had read to me the description of the research study. The investigator or her
representative has explained the study to me and has answered all of the questions I have at this time. I
have been told of the potential risks, discomforts and side effects as well as the possible benefits (if any)
of the study. I freely permit my child to take part in this study.
__________________________
Printed Name of Parent/Guardian
_________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian
__________
Date & Time
__________________________
Printed name of Investigator
________________________
Signature of Investigator
__________
Date & Time
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 12/18/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
77
APPENDIX H: Participant Assent Form for Saint Henry Middle School Saint Henry, OH
78
Assent Form
Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15 years old.
The assent discussion was initiated on ______________(date) at __________ (time).
The information was presented in age-appropriate terms.
The minor: _______________________________________________(Subject’s Name)
Agreed to take part in the study on _________________(date) at _______________ (time).
An assent discussion was not initiated with the minor for the following reason(s):
Minor is under 10 years of age
Minor is physically incapacitated
Minor is cognitively or emotionally unable to participate in an assent discussion
Minor refused to take part in the discussion
Other_________________________________________________________
RESEARCHER/DESIGNEE STATEMENT: I hereby certify that I have discussed the research
project with the research participant and/or his/her parent(s) or legal guardian(s). I have
explained all the information contained in the permission document, including any risks that may
be reasonably expected to occur. I further certify that the research participant was encouraged
to ask questions and that all questions were answered.
______________________________
Researcher/Designee Printed Name
______________________________
Researcher/Designee Signature
________________ _______________
Date
Time (AM/PM)
______________________________
Minor Subject Printed Name
________________________________
Minor Subject Signature (10-15 years)
________________ _______________
Date
Time (AM/PM)
IRB NUMBER: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
IRB APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/2015
IRB EXPIRATION DATE: 05/13/2016
79
APPENDIX I: Perceived Motor Competence Questionnaire (10-12 Year Olds)
80
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
81
APPENDIX J: Perceived Motor Competence Questionnaire (13-15 Year Olds)
82
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
83
APPENDIX K: Placement of the Accelerometer
84
85
APPENDIX L: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
86
May 14, 2015
Emily Marie Post
UTK - Kinesiology Recreation & Sport Studies
Re: UTK IRB-15-02291-XP
Study Title: Relationship between motor competence and physical activity of children ages 10-15 years old.
Dear Ms. Post:
The Administrative Section of the UTK Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed your application for the
above referenced project. It determined that your application is eligible for expedited review under 45 CFR
46.110(b)(1), category (7). The IRB has reviewed these materials and determined that they do comply with
proper consideration for the rights and welfare of human subjects and the regulatory requirements for the
protection of human subjects. Therefore, this letter constitutes full approval by the IRB of your application
version 1.0, as submitted. Approval of this study will be valid from May 14, 2015 to May 13, 2016.
In the event that subjects are to be recruited using solicitation materials, such as brochures, posters, web-based
advertisements, etc., these materials must receive prior approval of the IRB. Any revisions in the approved
application must also be submitted to and approved by the IRB prior to implementation. In addition, you are
responsible for reporting any unanticipated serious adverse events or other problems involving risks to
subjects or others in the manner required by the local IRB policy.
Finally, re-approval of your project is required by the IRB in accord with the conditions specified above.
You may not continue the research study beyond the time or other limits specified unless you obtain prior
written approval of the IRB.
Sincerely,
Colleen P. Gilrane, PhD
Chair
UTK Institutional Review Board
87
VITA
Emily Marie Post was born on July 25, 1991 in Coldwater, Ohio and raised in
Saint Henry, Ohio. She graduated from Saint Henry High School in Saint Henry, Ohio in
May of 2010. Emily began her college career in August of 2010 and received a Bachelor
of Science degree in Exercise Science and minor in Biology from Ohio Dominican
University in December of 2013. She began graduate school at the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville in August of 2014. In May of 2016 she graduated with a Master of
Science degree in Exercise Physiology from the Department of Kinesiology, Recreation,
and Sport Studies while working under Dr. Dawn Coe. She then began her doctoral
studies in August of 2016 in Health and Exercise Science with a focus in Exercise
Physiology at The Ohio State University while working under Dr. William Kraemer.